Usefulness of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Q3 Medicine
Diabetes Spectrum Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-08 DOI:10.2337/ds23-0012
James Choe, Rachel Kudrna, Luciana Mascarenhas Fonseca, Naomi S Chaytor
{"title":"Usefulness of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.","authors":"James Choe, Rachel Kudrna, Luciana Mascarenhas Fonseca, Naomi S Chaytor","doi":"10.2337/ds23-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Older adults with type 1 diabetes are at high risk for cognitive impairment, yet the usefulness of common cognitive screening instruments has not been evaluated in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 201 adults ≥60 years of age with type 1 diabetes completed a battery of neuropsychological measures and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Youden indices were used to evaluate overall screening test performance and to select an optimal MoCA cutoff score for detecting low cognitive performance, as defined as two or more neuropsychological test performances ≥1.5 SD below demographically corrected normative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ROC area under the curve (AUC) was 0.745 (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The publisher-recommended cutoff score of <26 resulted in sensitivity of 60.4% and specificity of 71.4%, whereas a cutoff score of <27 resulted in sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 61.0%. The Youden indices for these cutoff scores were 0.318 and 0.360, respectively. Minimally acceptable sensitivity (i.e., >0.80) was obtained when using a cutoff score of <28, whereas >0.80 specificity was obtained with a cutoff score of <25.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MoCA has modest overall performance (AUC 0.745) as a cognitive screening instrument in older adults with type 1 diabetes. The standard cutoff score of <26/30 may not adequately detect individuals with neuropsychological testing-defined abnormal cognition. The optimal MoCA cutoff score (based on the Youden index) was <27/30. A score of <28 resulted in acceptable sensitivity but was accompanied by low specificity (42%). Future studies with a more diverse population are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":39737,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Spectrum","volume":" ","pages":"385-390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654125/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/ds23-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Older adults with type 1 diabetes are at high risk for cognitive impairment, yet the usefulness of common cognitive screening instruments has not been evaluated in this population.

Methods: A total of 201 adults ≥60 years of age with type 1 diabetes completed a battery of neuropsychological measures and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Youden indices were used to evaluate overall screening test performance and to select an optimal MoCA cutoff score for detecting low cognitive performance, as defined as two or more neuropsychological test performances ≥1.5 SD below demographically corrected normative data.

Results: The ROC area under the curve (AUC) was 0.745 (P < 0.001). The publisher-recommended cutoff score of <26 resulted in sensitivity of 60.4% and specificity of 71.4%, whereas a cutoff score of <27 resulted in sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 61.0%. The Youden indices for these cutoff scores were 0.318 and 0.360, respectively. Minimally acceptable sensitivity (i.e., >0.80) was obtained when using a cutoff score of <28, whereas >0.80 specificity was obtained with a cutoff score of <25.

Conclusions: The MoCA has modest overall performance (AUC 0.745) as a cognitive screening instrument in older adults with type 1 diabetes. The standard cutoff score of <26/30 may not adequately detect individuals with neuropsychological testing-defined abnormal cognition. The optimal MoCA cutoff score (based on the Youden index) was <27/30. A score of <28 resulted in acceptable sensitivity but was accompanied by low specificity (42%). Future studies with a more diverse population are needed to confirm these findings.

蒙特利尔认知评估在老年1型糖尿病患者中的应用
患有1型糖尿病的老年人有很高的认知障碍风险,但尚未在这一人群中评估常见认知筛查工具的有用性。共有201名年龄≥60岁的1型糖尿病成年人完成了一系列神经心理学测量和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)。受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线和Youden指数用于评估总体筛查测试表现,并选择检测低认知表现的最佳MoCA截止分数,定义为≥2个神经心理测试表现≥1.5 SD,低于人口统计学校正的标准数据。ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.745(P<0.001)。当使用0.80的截断分数时,获得了出版商推荐的0.80的截止分数。当使用<25的截断分数获得了特异性。MoCA作为1型糖尿病老年人的认知筛查工具,总体表现平平(AUC=0.745)。<26/30的标准截断分数可能无法充分检测出神经心理测试定义的异常认知的个体。MoCA的最佳截止分数(基于Youden指数)为<27/30。评分<28可导致可接受的敏感性,但伴有低特异性(42%)。未来需要更多样化人群的研究来证实这些发现。
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
Diabetes Spectrum
Diabetes Spectrum Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The mission of Diabetes Spectrum: From Research to Practice is to assist health care professionals in the development of strategies to individualize treatment and diabetes self-management education for improved quality of life and diabetes control. These goals are achieved by presenting review as well as original, peer-reviewed articles on topics in clinical diabetes management, professional and patient education, nutrition, behavioral science and counseling, educational program development, and advocacy. In each issue, the FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE section explores, in depth, a diabetes care topic and provides practical application of current research findings.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信