Mohd Zaquan Arif Abd Ghafar1,2, Hayatul Nawwar Miptah1, Rónán O'Caoimh1,2,3,4. 1. Clinical Sciences Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway City, Ireland. 2. Department of Geriatric and Stroke Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway City, Ireland. 3. Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, University College Cork, Cork City, Ireland. 4. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Mercy University Hospital, Cork City, Ireland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is common and important to detect as controlling risk factors, particularly hypertension, may slow onset and progression. There is no consensus as to which cognitive screening instrument (CSI) is most suitable for VCI. We systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of brief CSIs for vascular mild cognitive impairment (VMCI) and vascular dementia (VaD). METHODS: Literature searches were performed using scholarly databases from inception until 31 May 2018. Studies were eligible if participants were aged 18 or older, interviewed face-to-face, and standard diagnostic criteria for VCI were applied, excluding those specifically identifying post-stroke dementia. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified including eight types of CSIs (27 subtests/variants) and 4575 participants (1015 with VCI), mean age range: 51.6 to 75.5 years. Most studies compared more than one instrument. Five papers examined clock-drawing; four, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); and three used the Brief Memory and Executive Test (BMET). The MoCA (AUC > 0.90) and MMSE (AUC: 0.86-0.99) had excellent accuracy in differentiating VaD from controls; the MoCA had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α: .83-.88). The MoCA (AUC: 0.87-0.93) and BMET (AUC: 0.94) had the greatest accuracy in separating VMCI from controls. Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias in all domains of the QUIPS. Data were heterogeneous, precluding a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although few studies were available and further research is required, data suggests that the MoCA is accurate and reliable for differentiating VaD and VMCI from controls.
INTRODUCTION:Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is common and important to detect as controlling risk factors, particularly hypertension, may slow onset and progression. There is no consensus as to which cognitive screening instrument (CSI) is most suitable for VCI. We systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of brief CSIs for vascular mild cognitive impairment (VMCI) and vascular dementia (VaD). METHODS: Literature searches were performed using scholarly databases from inception until 31 May 2018. Studies were eligible if participants were aged 18 or older, interviewed face-to-face, and standard diagnostic criteria for VCI were applied, excluding those specifically identifying post-stroke dementia. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified including eight types of CSIs (27 subtests/variants) and 4575 participants (1015 with VCI), mean age range: 51.6 to 75.5 years. Most studies compared more than one instrument. Five papers examined clock-drawing; four, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); and three used the Brief Memory and Executive Test (BMET). The MoCA (AUC > 0.90) and MMSE (AUC: 0.86-0.99) had excellent accuracy in differentiating VaD from controls; the MoCA had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α: .83-.88). The MoCA (AUC: 0.87-0.93) and BMET (AUC: 0.94) had the greatest accuracy in separating VMCI from controls. Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias in all domains of the QUIPS. Data were heterogeneous, precluding a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although few studies were available and further research is required, data suggests that the MoCA is accurate and reliable for differentiating VaD and VMCI from controls.
Authors: Patricia García-Pérez; María Del Carmen Rodríguez-Martínez; José Pablo Lara; Carlos de la Cruz-Cosme Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.390