The Diagnostic Performance of Screening Instruments for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Chronic Kidney Disease and Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 3.4 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Kidney Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-29 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101037
Kevin Wang, Andrea Razcόn Echeagaray, Sandra M Campbell, Clara Bohm, Karthik Tennankore, Stephanie Thompson, Aminu K Bello, Neesh Pannu, Lavanya Bathini, Mark McIsaac, Scott Klarenbach, David Collister
{"title":"The Diagnostic Performance of Screening Instruments for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Chronic Kidney Disease and Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Kevin Wang, Andrea Razcόn Echeagaray, Sandra M Campbell, Clara Bohm, Karthik Tennankore, Stephanie Thompson, Aminu K Bello, Neesh Pannu, Lavanya Bathini, Mark McIsaac, Scott Klarenbach, David Collister","doi":"10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale & objective: </strong>Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia disproportionately affect people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney failure. Screening instruments can accurately identify cognitive impairment in the general population, but their performance in the setting of kidney disease is unclear. We aimed to summarize the performance of screening instruments for cognitive impairment in adults with CKD or kidney failure.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting & study populations: </strong>Adults with CKD or kidney failure (dialysis or kidney transplantation).</p><p><strong>Selection criteria for studies: </strong>Studies published in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO through October 2022, evaluating the diagnostic performance of cognitive screening instruments compared to a neuropsychological battery gold standard.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Study characteristics including population, screening instrument, gold standard, operating characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, odds ratio, and optimal cutoffs were extracted by 2 investigators. Conflicts were resolved through discussion with another reviewer.</p><p><strong>Analytical approach: </strong>Random-effects models estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUality Assessment instrument for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 10 studies involving >1,800 participants with CKD or kidney failure. The most frequently evaluated screening instruments were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination. For MCI/dementia, the MoCA had the best diagnostic performance using a cutoff of 24, with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.85), respectively. Without any specific cutoff, the Mini-Mental Status Examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.28-0.69) and pooled specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Small number of studies, absence of kidney transplantation and hemodiafiltration populations, selective reporting of operating characteristics for optimal cutoffs, and high degree of statistical heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although further research is needed to evaluate the operating characteristics of MCI/dementia screening instruments in CKD, dialysis, and kidney transplantation, based on the current evidence, we recommend using the MoCA with a threshold of 24.</p>","PeriodicalId":17885,"journal":{"name":"Kidney Medicine","volume":"7 8","pages":"101037"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12309950/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kidney Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale & objective: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia disproportionately affect people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney failure. Screening instruments can accurately identify cognitive impairment in the general population, but their performance in the setting of kidney disease is unclear. We aimed to summarize the performance of screening instruments for cognitive impairment in adults with CKD or kidney failure.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting & study populations: Adults with CKD or kidney failure (dialysis or kidney transplantation).

Selection criteria for studies: Studies published in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO through October 2022, evaluating the diagnostic performance of cognitive screening instruments compared to a neuropsychological battery gold standard.

Data extraction: Study characteristics including population, screening instrument, gold standard, operating characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, odds ratio, and optimal cutoffs were extracted by 2 investigators. Conflicts were resolved through discussion with another reviewer.

Analytical approach: Random-effects models estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUality Assessment instrument for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

Results: We included 10 studies involving >1,800 participants with CKD or kidney failure. The most frequently evaluated screening instruments were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination. For MCI/dementia, the MoCA had the best diagnostic performance using a cutoff of 24, with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.85), respectively. Without any specific cutoff, the Mini-Mental Status Examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.28-0.69) and pooled specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99).

Limitations: Small number of studies, absence of kidney transplantation and hemodiafiltration populations, selective reporting of operating characteristics for optimal cutoffs, and high degree of statistical heterogeneity.

Conclusions: Although further research is needed to evaluate the operating characteristics of MCI/dementia screening instruments in CKD, dialysis, and kidney transplantation, based on the current evidence, we recommend using the MoCA with a threshold of 24.

慢性肾脏疾病和肾衰竭中轻度认知障碍和痴呆筛查仪器的诊断性能:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
理由与目的:轻度认知障碍(MCI)和痴呆对慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)和肾衰竭患者的影响不成比例。筛查工具可以准确地识别一般人群的认知障碍,但它们在肾脏疾病方面的表现尚不清楚。我们的目的是总结CKD或肾衰竭患者认知功能障碍筛查工具的性能。研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析。环境和研究人群:患有慢性肾病或肾衰竭(透析或肾移植)的成年人。研究选择标准:截至2022年10月,在Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane Library和PsycINFO上发表的研究,与神经心理学电池金标准相比,评估认知筛查工具的诊断性能。资料提取:由2名研究者提取包括人群、筛选工具、金标准在内的研究特征,以及灵敏度、特异性、优势比、最佳截止点等操作特征。冲突通过与另一位审稿人讨论来解决。分析方法:随机效应模型估计合并敏感性、特异性、诊断优势比和受试者工作特征曲线下的面积。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具评估偏倚风险-2。结果:我们纳入了10项研究,涉及bb1,800名CKD或肾衰竭患者。最常评估的筛查工具是蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)和迷你精神状态检查。对于MCI/痴呆,MoCA具有最佳的诊断性能,截止值为24,合并敏感性和特异性分别为0.94(95%置信区间[CI], 0.81-0.98)和0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.85)。没有任何特定的截止点,简易精神状态检查的总敏感性为0.48 (95% CI, 0.28-0.69),总特异性为0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99)。局限性:研究数量少,缺乏肾移植和血液滤过人群,对最佳截止点的操作特征的选择性报道,以及高度的统计异质性。结论:虽然还需要进一步的研究来评估MCI/痴呆筛查仪器在CKD、透析和肾移植中的工作特点,但基于目前的证据,我们建议使用阈值为24的MoCA。
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
Kidney Medicine
Kidney Medicine Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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