OBJECTIVES: A screening strategy composed of three-item temporal orientation and three-word recall has been increasingly used for detecting cognitive impairment. However, the intervening task administered between presentation and recall has varied. We evaluated six brief tasks that could be useful as intervening distractors and possibly provide incremental accuracy: serial subtraction, clock drawing, category fluency, letter fluency, timed visual detection, and digits backwards. METHODS: Older adults (n = 230) consecutively referred for suspected cognitive impairment underwent a comprehensive assessment for gold-standard diagnosis, of whom 56 (24%) presented cognitive impairment not dementia and 68 (30%) presented dementia. Among those with dementia, 87% presented very mild or mild stages (Clinical Dementia Rating 0.5 or 1). The incremental value of each candidate intervening task in a model already containing orientation and word recall was assessed. RESULTS: Category fluency (animal naming) presented the highest incremental value among the six candidate intervening tasks. Reclassification analyses revealed a net gain of 12% among cognitively impaired and 17% among normal participants. A four-point scaled score of the animal naming task was added to three-item temporal orientation and three-word recall to compose the 10-point Cognitive Screener. The education-adjusted 10-point Cognitive Screener outperformed the longer Mini-Mental State Examination for detecting both cognitive impairment (area under the curve 0.85 vs 0.77; p = 0.027) and dementia (area under the curve 0.90 vs 0.83; p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Based on empirical data, we have developed a brief and easy-to-use screening strategy with higher accuracy and some practical advantages compared with commonly used tools.
OBJECTIVES: A screening strategy composed of three-item temporal orientation and three-word recall has been increasingly used for detecting cognitive impairment. However, the intervening task administered between presentation and recall has varied. We evaluated six brief tasks that could be useful as intervening distractors and possibly provide incremental accuracy: serial subtraction, clock drawing, category fluency, letter fluency, timed visual detection, and digits backwards. METHODS: Older adults (n = 230) consecutively referred for suspected cognitive impairment underwent a comprehensive assessment for gold-standard diagnosis, of whom 56 (24%) presented cognitive impairment not dementia and 68 (30%) presented dementia. Among those with dementia, 87% presented very mild or mild stages (Clinical Dementia Rating 0.5 or 1). The incremental value of each candidate intervening task in a model already containing orientation and word recall was assessed. RESULTS: Category fluency (animal naming) presented the highest incremental value among the six candidate intervening tasks. Reclassification analyses revealed a net gain of 12% among cognitively impaired and 17% among normal participants. A four-point scaled score of the animal naming task was added to three-item temporal orientation and three-word recall to compose the 10-point Cognitive Screener. The education-adjusted 10-point Cognitive Screener outperformed the longer Mini-Mental State Examination for detecting both cognitive impairment (area under the curve 0.85 vs 0.77; p = 0.027) and dementia (area under the curve 0.90 vs 0.83; p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Based on empirical data, we have developed a brief and easy-to-use screening strategy with higher accuracy and some practical advantages compared with commonly used tools.
Authors: I Aprahamian; G V Aricó de Almeida; C F de Vasconcellos Romanin; T Gomes Caldas; N T Antunes Yoshitake; L Bataglini; S Mori Lin; A Alves Pereira; L Nara Alegrini Longhi; R L Mamoni; J E Martinelli Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: M J R Aliberti; K E Covinsky; D Apolinario; S J Lee; S Q Fortes-Filho; J A Melo; S S C Viana; C K Suemoto; W Jacob-Filho Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: M K Borges; C V Romanini; N A Lima; M Petrella; D L da Costa; V N An; B N Aguirre; J R Galdeano; I C Fernandes; J F Cecato; E C Robello; R C Oude Voshaar; I Aprahamian Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Ellen Elisa De Roeck; Peter Paul De Deyn; Eva Dierckx; Sebastiaan Engelborghs Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: M D Saraiva; D Apolinario; T J Avelino-Silva; C de Assis Moura Tavares; I F Gattás-Vernaglia; C Marques Fernandes; L M Rabelo; S Tavares Fernandes Yamaguti; T Karnakis; R Kalil-Filho; W Jacob-Filho; M J Romero Aliberti Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Venceslau A Coelho; Giovani Gn Santos; Carla M Avesani; Cicero Italo L Bezerra; Luana Cristina A Silva; Julia C Lauar; Bengt Lindholm; Peter Stenvinkel; Wilson Jacob-Filho; Irene L Noronha; Roberto Zatz; Rosa M A Moysés; Rosilene M Elias Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Ivan Aprahamian; Ronei Luciano Mamoni; Nilva Karla Cervigne; Taize Machado Augusto; Carla Vasconcelos Romanini; Marina Petrella; Daniele Lima da Costa; Natalia Almeida Lima; Marcus K Borges; Richard C Oude Voshaar Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Caroline Gil de Godoy; Erika Christina Gouveia E Silva; Danielle Brancolini de Oliveira; Amislaine Cristina Gambeta; Elizabeth Mendes da Silva; Camila Machado de Campos; Ana Carolina Basso Schmitt; Celso R F Carvalho; Carolina Fu; Clarice Tanaka; Naomi Kondo Nakagawa; Carlos Toufen Junior; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho; Keith Hill; José Eduardo Pompeu Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 2.365