阿姆斯特丹痴呆症队列中的小型精神状态检查和蒙特利尔认知评估的比较与联系

IF 2.6 4区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Mark A. Dubbelman, Marleen van de Beek, Aniek M. van Gils, Anna E. Leeuwis, Annelies E. van der Vlies, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Rudolf Ponds, Sietske A.M. Sikkes, Wiesje M. van der Flier
{"title":"阿姆斯特丹痴呆症队列中的小型精神状态检查和蒙特利尔认知评估的比较与联系","authors":"Mark A. Dubbelman, Marleen van de Beek, Aniek M. van Gils, Anna E. Leeuwis, Annelies E. van der Vlies, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Rudolf Ponds, Sietske A.M. Sikkes, Wiesje M. van der Flier","doi":"10.1017/s1355617724000341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Objectives:</span><p>We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.</p><span>Methods:</span><p>2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.</p><span>Results:</span><p>MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing and linking the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort\",\"authors\":\"Mark A. Dubbelman, Marleen van de Beek, Aniek M. van Gils, Anna E. Leeuwis, Annelies E. van der Vlies, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Rudolf Ponds, Sietske A.M. Sikkes, Wiesje M. van der Flier\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1355617724000341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Objectives:</span><p>We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.</p><span>Methods:</span><p>2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.</p><span>Results:</span><p>MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000341\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000341","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

方法:2325 名记忆门诊患者(63.2 ± 8.6 岁;43% 为女性)同时完成了 MMSE 和 MoCA 的测试,这些患者被诊断为多种疾病,包括主观认知功能下降、轻度认知功能障碍和各种病因导致的痴呆。我们对这两种筛查工具进行了描述,包括项目层面的描述。然后,我们使用线性回归法研究了年龄、性别、教育程度和诊断对两种工具总分的影响。接着,在线性混合模型中,我们将两种筛查工具视为重复测量,并分析了这些特征对工具总分之间关系的影响。结果:MMSE得分(平均值±标准差:25.0±4.6)高于MoCA得分(21.2±5.4),且MMSE项目的变化一般小于MoCA项目。两种工具的得分均受年龄、性别、教育程度和诊断的影响。年龄(估计值 = -0.01,95% 置信区间 = [-0.03,-0.00])、教育程度(0.14 [0.10,0.18])和诊断对筛查者之间的关系具有调节作用。结论:考虑到患者特征的影响,我们创建了将 MMSE 评分转换为 MoCA 评分的对照表,反之亦然。这些表格可促进临床医生和研究人员之间的合作,并可对老年人的整体认知功能进行更大规模的汇总分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing and linking the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort
Objectives:

We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.

Methods:

2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.

Results:

MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.

Conclusions:

Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
185
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 4,500 international members from a variety of disciplines. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society welcomes original, creative, high quality research papers covering all areas of neuropsychology. The focus of articles may be primarily experimental, applied, or clinical. Contributions will broadly reflect the interest of all areas of neuropsychology, including but not limited to: development of cognitive processes, brain-behavior relationships, adult and pediatric neuropsychology, neurobehavioral syndromes (such as aphasia or apraxia), and the interfaces of neuropsychology with related areas such as behavioral neurology, neuropsychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. Papers that utilize behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological measures are appropriate. To assure maximum flexibility and to promote diverse mechanisms of scholarly communication, the following formats are available in addition to a Regular Research Article: Brief Communication is a shorter research article; Rapid Communication is intended for "fast breaking" new work that does not yet justify a full length article and is placed on a fast review track; Case Report is a theoretically important and unique case study; Critical Review and Short Review are thoughtful considerations of topics of importance to neuropsychology and include meta-analyses; Dialogue provides a forum for publishing two distinct positions on controversial issues in a point-counterpoint format; Special Issue and Special Section consist of several articles linked thematically; Letter to the Editor responds to recent articles published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society; and Book Review, which is considered but is no longer solicited.
×
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