快速认知筛查与蒙特利尔认知评估在老年人和老年认知障碍筛查中的比较

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Psychogeriatrics Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-05-16 DOI:10.1111/psyg.12841
Matthew Zhixuan Chen, Yiong Huak Chan, Michael Wai Kit Wong, Reshma Aziz Merchant
{"title":"快速认知筛查与蒙特利尔认知评估在老年人和老年认知障碍筛查中的比较","authors":"Matthew Zhixuan Chen, Yiong Huak Chan, Michael Wai Kit Wong, Reshma Aziz Merchant","doi":"10.1111/psyg.12841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was developed as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Given the need for a rapid screening test in settings such as primary care, we compare the validity of the Rapid Cognitive Screen (RCS) against the MoCA, and determine cut-off scores in the old and old-old.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional study involving community-dwelling 'old' (65 to 79 years old) and 'old-old' (≥ 80 years old) without dementia. Cognitive impairment was defined by MoCA score 17 to 22. Validation was done using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis: area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity (Sn), and specificity (Sp).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 183 participants (mean age 72.1 ± 5.2 years),15.8% (n = 29) were classified as cognitively impaired. The overall ROC curve had an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90, P < 0.01) with an optimal cut-off of 7/8 on RCS (Sn 0.77, Sp 0.72). The 'old' and 'old-old' group had AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.91, P < 0.01) with 8/9 as optimal cut-off (Sn 0.51, Sp 0.96) and AUC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-1.03, P < 0.01) with 7/8 as optimal cut-off (Sn 0.71, Sp 1.00) respectively. In multivariate analysis, age was associated with 0.05 (95% CI -0.10-0.00, P < 0.04) point decrement, while >6 years of education was associated with 0.82 (95% CI 0.32-1.33, P < 0.01) point increment in RCS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The three-item RCS is quick and easy to administer. Although RCS met the criterion for good validity against MoCA in predicting cognitive impairment, its utility as a first-line screening tool needs to be further validated in a large-scale population study.</p>","PeriodicalId":20784,"journal":{"name":"Psychogeriatrics","volume":"22 1","pages":"460-468"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325369/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Rapid Cognitive Screen against Montreal Cognitive Assessment in screening for cognitive impairment in the old and old-old.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Zhixuan Chen, Yiong Huak Chan, Michael Wai Kit Wong, Reshma Aziz Merchant\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psyg.12841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was developed as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Given the need for a rapid screening test in settings such as primary care, we compare the validity of the Rapid Cognitive Screen (RCS) against the MoCA, and determine cut-off scores in the old and old-old.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional study involving community-dwelling 'old' (65 to 79 years old) and 'old-old' (≥ 80 years old) without dementia. Cognitive impairment was defined by MoCA score 17 to 22. Validation was done using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis: area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity (Sn), and specificity (Sp).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 183 participants (mean age 72.1 ± 5.2 years),15.8% (n = 29) were classified as cognitively impaired. The overall ROC curve had an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90, P < 0.01) with an optimal cut-off of 7/8 on RCS (Sn 0.77, Sp 0.72). The 'old' and 'old-old' group had AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.91, P < 0.01) with 8/9 as optimal cut-off (Sn 0.51, Sp 0.96) and AUC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-1.03, P < 0.01) with 7/8 as optimal cut-off (Sn 0.71, Sp 1.00) respectively. In multivariate analysis, age was associated with 0.05 (95% CI -0.10-0.00, P < 0.04) point decrement, while >6 years of education was associated with 0.82 (95% CI 0.32-1.33, P < 0.01) point increment in RCS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The three-item RCS is quick and easy to administer. Although RCS met the criterion for good validity against MoCA in predicting cognitive impairment, its utility as a first-line screening tool needs to be further validated in a large-scale population study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychogeriatrics\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"460-468\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9325369/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychogeriatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12841\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychogeriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12841","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)是作为轻度认知障碍(MCI)的筛查工具而开发的。考虑到在初级保健等环境中需要进行快速筛查测试,我们将快速认知筛查(RCS)的有效性与MoCA进行了比较,并确定了老年人和老年人的截断分数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Rapid Cognitive Screen against Montreal Cognitive Assessment in screening for cognitive impairment in the old and old-old.

Background: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was developed as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Given the need for a rapid screening test in settings such as primary care, we compare the validity of the Rapid Cognitive Screen (RCS) against the MoCA, and determine cut-off scores in the old and old-old.

Methods: Cross-sectional study involving community-dwelling 'old' (65 to 79 years old) and 'old-old' (≥ 80 years old) without dementia. Cognitive impairment was defined by MoCA score 17 to 22. Validation was done using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis: area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity (Sn), and specificity (Sp).

Results: Of the 183 participants (mean age 72.1 ± 5.2 years),15.8% (n = 29) were classified as cognitively impaired. The overall ROC curve had an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90, P < 0.01) with an optimal cut-off of 7/8 on RCS (Sn 0.77, Sp 0.72). The 'old' and 'old-old' group had AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.74-0.91, P < 0.01) with 8/9 as optimal cut-off (Sn 0.51, Sp 0.96) and AUC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-1.03, P < 0.01) with 7/8 as optimal cut-off (Sn 0.71, Sp 1.00) respectively. In multivariate analysis, age was associated with 0.05 (95% CI -0.10-0.00, P < 0.04) point decrement, while >6 years of education was associated with 0.82 (95% CI 0.32-1.33, P < 0.01) point increment in RCS scores.

Conclusion: The three-item RCS is quick and easy to administer. Although RCS met the criterion for good validity against MoCA in predicting cognitive impairment, its utility as a first-line screening tool needs to be further validated in a large-scale population study.

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
Psychogeriatrics
Psychogeriatrics Medicine-Geriatrics and Gerontology
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychogeriatrics is an international journal sponsored by the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society and publishes peer-reviewed original papers dealing with all aspects of psychogeriatrics and related fields The Journal encourages articles with gerontopsychiatric, neurobiological, genetic, diagnostic, social-psychiatric, health-political, psychological or psychotherapeutic content. Themes can be illuminated through basic science, clinical (human and animal) studies, case studies, epidemiological or humanistic research
×
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