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 , S. López-Alcalde , M. Florido-Santiago , M. Espinosa-García , I. Rego-García , R. Calle-Calle , I. Carrera-Muñoz , 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> < .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.