Jui-Chen Tsai1, Chia-Wei Chen2, Hsin Chu3, Hui-Ling Yang4, Min-Huey Chung4, Yuan-Mei Liao4, Kuei-Ru Chou5. 1. Department of Nursing, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Nursing, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Institute of Aerospace Medicine, School of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Neurology, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Department of Nursing, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Psychiatric Research Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: kueiru@tmu.edu.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used, and 142 participants were screened for MCI and mild dementia by using the MoCA and MMSE. The receiver operating characteristic curves and the cutoff scores with the largest area under the curve (AUC) were determined and compared to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value (positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]). RESULTS: The optimal MoCA cutoff scores for MCI and dementia were 24 and 20, respectively. According to these scores, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.79, the specificities were 0.74 and 0.80, the AUCs were 0.91 and 0.87, the PPVs were 0.93 and 0.74, and the NPVs were 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The optimal cutoff MMSE scores for MCI and dementia were 27 and 24, respectively. Hence, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.84, the specificities were 0.70 and 0.86, the AUCs were 0.88 and 0.89, the PPVs were 0.94 and 0.80, and the NPVs were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the Chinese population, the MoCA is more efficient in screening for MCI than for dementia, whereas the MMSE is more efficient in screening for dementia than for MCI. The MoCA and MMSE can be used by clinical staffs for quick and accurate cognitive impairment screening, thus facilitating early and appropriate clinical intervention and treatment.
BACKGROUND: The study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive design was used, and 142 participants were screened for MCI and mild dementia by using the MoCA and MMSE. The receiver operating characteristic curves and the cutoff scores with the largest area under the curve (AUC) were determined and compared to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value (positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]). RESULTS: The optimal MoCA cutoff scores for MCI and dementia were 24 and 20, respectively. According to these scores, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.79, the specificities were 0.74 and 0.80, the AUCs were 0.91 and 0.87, the PPVs were 0.93 and 0.74, and the NPVs were 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The optimal cutoff MMSE scores for MCI and dementia were 27 and 24, respectively. Hence, the sensitivities were 0.88 and 0.84, the specificities were 0.70 and 0.86, the AUCs were 0.88 and 0.89, the PPVs were 0.94 and 0.80, and the NPVs were 0.81 and 0.88, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the Chinese population, the MoCA is more efficient in screening for MCI than for dementia, whereas the MMSE is more efficient in screening for dementia than for MCI. The MoCA and MMSE can be used by clinical staffs for quick and accurate cognitive impairment screening, thus facilitating early and appropriate clinical intervention and treatment.
Authors: Jean H Kim; Timothy S Sumerlin; William B Goggins; Elizabeth M S Kwong; Jason Leung; Blanche Yu; Timothy C Y Kwok Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 4.105