Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of five cross-cultural cognitive screening instruments for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in a multicultural memory clinic sample.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
T Rune Nielsen, Kasper Jørgensen, Alfonso Delgado-Álvarez, Sanne Franzen, Alvaro Lozano-Ruiz, Maria Özden, Juliette Palisson, Naaheed Mukadam, Gunhild Waldemar
{"title":"Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of five cross-cultural cognitive screening instruments for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in a multicultural memory clinic sample.","authors":"T Rune Nielsen, Kasper Jørgensen, Alfonso Delgado-Álvarez, Sanne Franzen, Alvaro Lozano-Ruiz, Maria Özden, Juliette Palisson, Naaheed Mukadam, Gunhild Waldemar","doi":"10.1177/13872877251351037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundWith the changing demographic landscape in most countries worldwide, early identification of cognitive impairment in multicultural populations is increasingly relevant.ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC), BASIC Questionnaire (BASIC-Q), Category Cued Memory Test (CCMT), Multicultural Cognitive Examination (MCE), and Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a multicultural memory clinic sample.MethodsThe study was a cross-sectional multi-center study across six sites in five European countries. All cognitive screening instruments were available in the majority languages of the collaborating countries. Participants with immigrant status were generally assessed in their first language by multilingual researchers or through interpreter-mediated assessment. Correlation analysis was used to explore associations between scores on the cognitive screening instruments. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to examine diagnostic accuracy for dementia and MCI as compared to specialist diagnosis.ResultsThe study included 187 participants (94 cognitively intact, 36 MCI, 57 dementia), of which 105 (56%) had immigrant background. All cognitive screening instruments were strongly correlated and had high diagnostic accuracy for dementia (areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) in the range 0.86-0.97) and moderate to high diagnostic accuracy for MCI (AUCs in the range 0.72-0.86), with the MCE, BASIC, and BASIC-Q showing the best diagnostic properties. Overall, diagnostic accuracy for cognitive impairment (dementia or MCI) did not significantly differ between European native-born and immigrant participants, or between participants with <7 compared to ≥7 years of formal schooling.ConclusionsIn the present study, the MCE, BASIC, and BASIC-Q showed better diagnostic properties than the RUDAS and CCMT for the diagnosis of dementia and MCI in a multicultural memory clinic sample.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"13872877251351037"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251351037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundWith the changing demographic landscape in most countries worldwide, early identification of cognitive impairment in multicultural populations is increasingly relevant.ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC), BASIC Questionnaire (BASIC-Q), Category Cued Memory Test (CCMT), Multicultural Cognitive Examination (MCE), and Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a multicultural memory clinic sample.MethodsThe study was a cross-sectional multi-center study across six sites in five European countries. All cognitive screening instruments were available in the majority languages of the collaborating countries. Participants with immigrant status were generally assessed in their first language by multilingual researchers or through interpreter-mediated assessment. Correlation analysis was used to explore associations between scores on the cognitive screening instruments. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to examine diagnostic accuracy for dementia and MCI as compared to specialist diagnosis.ResultsThe study included 187 participants (94 cognitively intact, 36 MCI, 57 dementia), of which 105 (56%) had immigrant background. All cognitive screening instruments were strongly correlated and had high diagnostic accuracy for dementia (areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) in the range 0.86-0.97) and moderate to high diagnostic accuracy for MCI (AUCs in the range 0.72-0.86), with the MCE, BASIC, and BASIC-Q showing the best diagnostic properties. Overall, diagnostic accuracy for cognitive impairment (dementia or MCI) did not significantly differ between European native-born and immigrant participants, or between participants with <7 compared to ≥7 years of formal schooling.ConclusionsIn the present study, the MCE, BASIC, and BASIC-Q showed better diagnostic properties than the RUDAS and CCMT for the diagnosis of dementia and MCI in a multicultural memory clinic sample.

五种跨文化认知筛查工具对多元文化记忆诊所样本中痴呆和轻度认知障碍诊断准确性的比较
随着世界上大多数国家人口结构的变化,早期识别多元文化人群的认知障碍变得越来越重要。目的比较认知障碍简易评定量表(BASIC)、基本问卷(BASIC- q)、类别提示记忆测验(CCMT)、多元文化认知测验(MCE)和罗兰通用痴呆评定量表(RUDAS)对多元文化记忆临床样本中痴呆和轻度认知障碍(MCI)的诊断准确性。方法本研究为横断面多中心研究,横跨5个欧洲国家的6个地点。所有认知筛选工具都以合作国家的多数语文提供。具有移民身份的参与者通常由多语言研究人员或通过口译介导的评估以其母语进行评估。采用相关分析探讨认知筛查工具得分之间的关联。使用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析来检查痴呆和MCI的诊断准确性,并与专家诊断进行比较。结果187名参与者(94名认知完整,36名轻度认知障碍,57名痴呆),其中105名(56%)有移民背景。所有认知筛查工具均具有强相关性,对痴呆具有较高的诊断准确性(ROC曲线下面积(auc)在0.86-0.97之间),对MCI具有中高的诊断准确性(auc在0.72-0.86之间),其中MCE、BASIC和BASIC- q表现出最好的诊断特性。总体而言,认知障碍(痴呆或MCI)的诊断准确性在欧洲本土出生的参与者和移民参与者之间没有显著差异
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信