Diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of combined use of Fototest and Mini-Cog in cognitive impairment

C. Carnero-Pardo , S. López-Alcalde , M. Florido-Santiago , M. Espinosa-García , I. Rego-García , R. Calle-Calle , I. Carrera-Muñoz , R. de la Vega-Cotarelo
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of combined use of Fototest and Mini-Cog in cognitive impairment","authors":"C. Carnero-Pardo ,&nbsp;S. López-Alcalde ,&nbsp;M. Florido-Santiago ,&nbsp;M. Espinosa-García ,&nbsp;I. Rego-García ,&nbsp;R. Calle-Calle ,&nbsp;I. Carrera-Muñoz ,&nbsp;R. de la Vega-Cotarelo","doi":"10.1016/j.nrleng.2023.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a phase III diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5−91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2−94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5−97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1−85.4] and 84.9 [80.8−88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs 233.9 s [45.2]; <em>P</em> &lt; .0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94155,"journal":{"name":"Neurologia","volume":"38 9","pages":"Pages 653-662"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S217358082300055X/pdfft?md5=c8da50250f3ffb38a8d18fd64003cd8e&pid=1-s2.0-S217358082300055X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S217358082300055X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment.

Methods

We performed a phase III diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets.

Results

The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5−91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2−94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5−97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1−85.4] and 84.9 [80.8−88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs 233.9 s [45.2]; P < .0001).

Conclusions

Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.

Fototest和Mini-Cog联合应用对认知障碍的诊断准确性和预测有效性。
引言:Fototest和Mini-Cog包含了认知评估所需的所有领域。本研究旨在评估联合使用这两种仪器检测认知障碍的诊断准确性。方法:我们用2个独立样本进行了III期诊断准确性研究:研究,包括448名参与者,随机分配到2个数据集(BASE[80%]和TEST[20%]);和EXTERNAL,包括61名参与者。指标测试是连续服用Fototest和Mini-Cog,参考测试是正式的认知评估。我们评估了两步测试与连续应用测试的诊断准确性,以及简单(Comb simple)、逻辑回归(Comb-LR)和随机决策树(Comb-RDT)模型联合用于检测认知障碍(全局恶化量表得分≥3)。我们对BASE数据集进行了探索性分析,选择了最大限度提高准确性的标准;使用预先指定的分析来评估TEST和EXTERNAL数据集中的选定标准。结果:BASE数据集中的组合模型(Comb Simple:88.3[88.5-91.4];Comb LR:91.6[88.2-94.3];Comb-RDT 95.2[92.5-97.2])的诊断准确率(95%置信区间)显著高于Mini-Cog和Fototest观察到的个体值(分别为81.6[77.1-85.4]和84.9[88-88.5])。这些结果在TEST(Comb Simple:88.9;Comb LR:95.6;Comb RDT:92.2)和EXTERNAL数据集(Comb Simple:91.8;Comb LR:90.2;Comb RD T:88.5)中进行了复制。两步应用与连续应用具有相同的诊断准确性,但所需时间较少(平均[SD]为197.3 s[56.7]对233.9 s[45.2];P 结论:Fototest和Mini-Cog联合应用不到4个月 分钟,并提高了两种仪器的诊断准确性。两步应用程序效率更高,因为它需要更少的时间,同时保持相同的诊断准确性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
53 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信