OBJECTIVES: Screening tests play a crucial role in dementia diagnostics, thus they should be very sensitive for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessment. Nowadays, the MiniMental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly used scale in cognitive function evaluation, albeit it is claimed to be imprecise for MCI detection. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), was created as an alternative method for MMSE. Aim. MoCA vs. MMSE credibility assessment in detecting MCI, while taking into consideration the sensitivity and specificity by cut-off points. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out by the authors using EBSCO host Web, Wiley Online Library, Springer Link, Science Direct and Medline databases. The following medical subject headings were used in the search: mild cognitive impairment, mini-mental state examination, Montreal cognitive assessment, diagnostics value. Papers which met inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen to be included in this review. At the end, for the evaluation of MoCA 20, and MMSE 13 studies were qualified. Research credibility was established by computing weighted arithmetic mean, where weight is defined as population for which the result of sensitivity and specificity for the cut-off point was achieved. The cut-offs are shown as ROC curve and accuracy of diagnosis for MoCA and MMSE was calculated as the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: ROC curve analysis for MoCA demonstrated that MCI best detection can be achieved with a cut-off point of 24/25 (n = 9350, the sensitivity of 80.48% and specificity of 81.19%). AUC was 0.846 (95% CI 0.823-0.868). For MMSE, it turned out that more important cut-off was of 27/28 (n = 882, 66.34% sensitivity and specificity of 72.94%). AUC was 0.736 (95% CI 0.718-0.767). CONCLUSIONS: MoCA test better meets the criteria for screening tests for the detection of MCI among patients over 60 years of age than MMSE.
OBJECTIVES: Screening tests play a crucial role in dementia diagnostics, thus they should be very sensitive for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) assessment. Nowadays, the MiniMental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly used scale in cognitive function evaluation, albeit it is claimed to be imprecise for MCI detection. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), was created as an alternative method for MMSE. Aim. MoCA vs. MMSE credibility assessment in detecting MCI, while taking into consideration the sensitivity and specificity by cut-off points. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out by the authors using EBSCO host Web, Wiley Online Library, Springer Link, Science Direct and Medline databases. The following medical subject headings were used in the search: mild cognitive impairment, mini-mental state examination, Montreal cognitive assessment, diagnostics value. Papers which met inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen to be included in this review. At the end, for the evaluation of MoCA 20, and MMSE 13 studies were qualified. Research credibility was established by computing weighted arithmetic mean, where weight is defined as population for which the result of sensitivity and specificity for the cut-off point was achieved. The cut-offs are shown as ROC curve and accuracy of diagnosis for MoCA and MMSE was calculated as the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: ROC curve analysis for MoCA demonstrated that MCI best detection can be achieved with a cut-off point of 24/25 (n = 9350, the sensitivity of 80.48% and specificity of 81.19%). AUC was 0.846 (95% CI 0.823-0.868). For MMSE, it turned out that more important cut-off was of 27/28 (n = 882, 66.34% sensitivity and specificity of 72.94%). AUC was 0.736 (95% CI 0.718-0.767). CONCLUSIONS: MoCA test better meets the criteria for screening tests for the detection of MCI among patients over 60 years of age than MMSE.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mini-Mental; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; State Examination; mild cognitive impairment
Authors: Heidi C Rossetti; Emily E Smith; Linda S Hynan; Laura H Lacritz; C Munro Cullum; Aaron Van Wright; Myron F Weiner Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Cyrus Ahalt; Irena Stijacic-Cenzer; Bruce L Miller; Howard J Rosen; Deborah E Barnes; Brie A Williams Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael Malek-Ahmadi; Kathy O'Connor; Sharon Schofield; David W Coon; Edward Zamrini Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Lijun Qiu; Xiangliang Tan; Mengchen Zou; Binchang Lao; Yikai Xu; Yaoming Xue; Fang Gao; Ying Cao Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2018-12-30
Authors: Andrea M Weinstein; Swathi Gujral; Meryl A Butters; Christopher R Bowie; Corinne E Fischer; Alastair J Flint; Nathan Herrmann; James L Kennedy; Linda Mah; Shima Ovaysikia; Bruce G Pollock; Tarek K Rajji; Benoit H Mulsant Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.105