Screening for mild cognitive impairment: Comparison of "MCI Specific" screening instruments

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorO'Caoimh, Rónán
dc.contributor.authorTimmons, Suzanne
dc.contributor.authorMolloy, D. William
dc.contributor.funderHealth Research Boarden
dc.contributor.funderIrish Hospice Foundationen
dc.contributor.funderHealth Service Executive of Irelanden
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-27T10:17:31Z
dc.date.available2019-11-27T10:17:31Z
dc.date.issued2016-03-15
dc.description.abstractBackground: Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely validated but few studies compare it to tests designed specifically to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Objective: Comparison of two “MCI specific” screens: the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen (Qmci) and MoCA. Methods: Patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC; n = 73), MCI (n = 103), or dementia (n = 274), were referred to a university hospital memory clinic and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as normal controls (n = 101). Results: The Qmci was more accurate than the MoCA in differentiating MCI from controls, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 versus 0.80, p = 0.009. The Qmci had greater (AUC 0.81), albeit non-significant, accuracy than the MoCA (AUC 0.73) in separating MCI from SMC, p = 0.09. At its recommended cut-off (<62/100), the Qmci had a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 87% for CI (MCI/dementia). Raising the cut-off to <65 optimized sensitivity (94%), reducing specificity (80%). At <26/30 the MoCA had better sensitivity (96%) but poor specificity (58%). A MoCA cut-off of <24 provided the optimal balance. Median Qmci administration time was 4.5 (±1.3) minutes compared with 9.5 (±2.8) for the MoCA Conclusions: Although both tests distinguish MCI from dementia, the Qmci is particularly accurate in separating MCI from normal cognition and has shorter administration times, suggesting it is more useful in busy hospital clinics. This study reaffirms the high sensitivity of the MoCA but suggests a lower cut-off (<24) in this setting.en
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.description.versionPublished Versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationO'Caoimh, R., Timmons, S., and Molloy, D. W. (2016) 'Screening for mild cognitive impairment: Comparison of "MCI Specific" screening instruments', Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 51(2), pp. 619-629. doi: 10.3233/JAD-150881en
dc.identifier.doi10.3233/JAD-150881en
dc.identifier.eissn1875-8908)
dc.identifier.endpage629en
dc.identifier.issn1387-2877
dc.identifier.issued2en
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Alzheimer's Diseaseen
dc.identifier.startpage619en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10468/9262
dc.identifier.volume51en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherIOS Pressen
dc.rights© 2016 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved This article is published online with Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licenseen
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en
dc.subjectCognitive screeningen
dc.subjectDementiaen
dc.subjectMild cognitive impairmenten
dc.subjectMontreal Cognitive Assessmenten
dc.subjectQuick mild cognitive impairment screenen
dc.titleScreening for mild cognitive impairment: Comparison of "MCI Specific" screening instrumentsen
dc.typeArticle (peer-reviewed)en
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Thumbnail Image
Name:
jad_2016_51-2_jad-51-2-jad150881_jad-51-jad150881.pdf
Size:
209.02 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
jad_2016_51-2_jad-51-2-jad150881_jad-51-jad150881-s001.docx
Size:
109.91 KB
Format:
Microsoft Word XML
Description:
Supplementary file 1
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation - Journal Articles