Roger Clarnette1,2, Rónán O'Caoimh3,4, Deanna N Antony2, Anton Svendrovski5, D William Molloy3. 1. School of Medicine and Pharmacology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. 2. Department of Community and Geriatric Medicine, Fremantle Hospital and Health Service, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 3. Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, University College Cork, St Finbarrs Hospital, Cork City, Ireland. 4. Health Research Board, Clinical Research Facility Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. 5. UZIK Consulting Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. METHODS: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. RESULTS: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/-19), 52.5 (+/-12) and 36 (+/-14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/-5), 22 (+/-4) and 15 (+/-7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23). CONCLUSION: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population.
INTRODUCTION: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. METHODS: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. RESULTS: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/-19), 52.5 (+/-12) and 36 (+/-14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/-5), 22 (+/-4) and 15 (+/-7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23). CONCLUSION: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population.
Authors: Rónán O'Caoimh; Yang Gao; Anton Svendovski; Paul Gallagher; Joseph Eustace; D William Molloy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Zhenren Peng; Hu Jiang; Xiaomin Wang; Kaiyong Huang; Yukun Zuo; Xiangmin Wu; Abu S Abdullah; Li Yang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Padraic Nicholas; Rónán O'Caoimh; Yang Gao; Afsana Habib; Thomas Karol Mross; Roger Clarnette; D William Molloy Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 3.390