Cargando…

Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments

BACKGROUND: Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely validated but few studies compare it to tests designed specifically to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVE:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’Caoimh, Rónán, Timmons, Suzanne, Molloy, D. William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26890758
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-150881
_version_ 1782440316170665984
author O’Caoimh, Rónán
Timmons, Suzanne
Molloy, D. William
author_facet O’Caoimh, Rónán
Timmons, Suzanne
Molloy, D. William
author_sort O’Caoimh, Rónán
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely validated but few studies compare it to tests designed specifically to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVE: Comparison of two “MCI specific” screens: the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen (Qmci) and MoCA. METHODS: Patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC; n = 73), MCI (n = 103), or dementia (n = 274), were referred to a university hospital memory clinic and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as normal controls (n = 101). RESULTS: The Qmci was more accurate than the MoCA in differentiating MCI from controls, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 versus 0.80, p = 0.009. The Qmci had greater (AUC 0.81), albeit non-significant, accuracy than the MoCA (AUC 0.73) in separating MCI from SMC, p = 0.09. At its recommended cut-off (<62/100), the Qmci had a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 87% for CI (MCI/dementia). Raising the cut-off to <65 optimized sensitivity (94%), reducing specificity (80%). At <26/30 the MoCA had better sensitivity (96%) but poor specificity (58%). A MoCA cut-off of <24 provided the optimal balance. Median Qmci administration time was 4.5 (±1.3) minutes compared with 9.5 (±2.8) for the MoCA. CONCLUSIONS: Although both tests distinguish MCI from dementia, the Qmci is particularly accurate in separating MCI from normal cognition and has shorter administration times, suggesting it is more useful in busy hospital clinics. This study reaffirms the high sensitivity of the MoCA but suggests a lower cut-off (<24) in this setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4927818
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49278182016-06-30 Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments O’Caoimh, Rónán Timmons, Suzanne Molloy, D. William J Alzheimers Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely validated but few studies compare it to tests designed specifically to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVE: Comparison of two “MCI specific” screens: the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen (Qmci) and MoCA. METHODS: Patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC; n = 73), MCI (n = 103), or dementia (n = 274), were referred to a university hospital memory clinic and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as normal controls (n = 101). RESULTS: The Qmci was more accurate than the MoCA in differentiating MCI from controls, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 versus 0.80, p = 0.009. The Qmci had greater (AUC 0.81), albeit non-significant, accuracy than the MoCA (AUC 0.73) in separating MCI from SMC, p = 0.09. At its recommended cut-off (<62/100), the Qmci had a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 87% for CI (MCI/dementia). Raising the cut-off to <65 optimized sensitivity (94%), reducing specificity (80%). At <26/30 the MoCA had better sensitivity (96%) but poor specificity (58%). A MoCA cut-off of <24 provided the optimal balance. Median Qmci administration time was 4.5 (±1.3) minutes compared with 9.5 (±2.8) for the MoCA. CONCLUSIONS: Although both tests distinguish MCI from dementia, the Qmci is particularly accurate in separating MCI from normal cognition and has shorter administration times, suggesting it is more useful in busy hospital clinics. This study reaffirms the high sensitivity of the MoCA but suggests a lower cut-off (<24) in this setting. IOS Press 2016-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4927818/ /pubmed/26890758 http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-150881 Text en IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
O’Caoimh, Rónán
Timmons, Suzanne
Molloy, D. William
Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments
title Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments
title_full Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments
title_fullStr Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments
title_full_unstemmed Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments
title_short Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments
title_sort screening for mild cognitive impairment: comparison of “mci specific” screening instruments
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26890758
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-150881
work_keys_str_mv AT ocaoimhronan screeningformildcognitiveimpairmentcomparisonofmcispecificscreeninginstruments
AT timmonssuzanne screeningformildcognitiveimpairmentcomparisonofmcispecificscreeninginstruments
AT molloydwilliam screeningformildcognitiveimpairmentcomparisonofmcispecificscreeninginstruments