Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (1045198)

Clipboard (0)

Related Articles

1.  Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease 
Neurology  2009;73(21):1738-1745.
Due to the high prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia in Parkinson disease (PD), routine cognitive screening is important for the optimal management of patients with PD. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is more sensitive than the commonly used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting MCI and dementia in patients without PD, but its validity in PD has not been established.
A representative sample of 132 patients with PD at 2 movement disorders centers was administered the MoCA, MMSE, and a neuropsychological battery with operationalized criteria for deficits. MCI and PD dementia (PDD) criteria were applied by an investigator blinded to the MoCA and MMSE results. The discriminant validity of the MoCA and MMSE as screening and diagnostic instruments was ascertained.
Approximately one third of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a cognitive disorder (12.9% PDD and 17.4% MCI). Mean (SD) MoCA and MMSE scores were 25.0 (3.8) and 28.1 (2.0). The overall discriminant validity for detection of any cognitive disorder was similar for the MoCA and the MMSE (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [95% confidence interval]): MoCA (0.79 [0.72, 0.87]) and MMSE (0.76 [0.67, 0.85]), but as a screening instrument the MoCA (optimal cutoff point = 26/27, 64% correctly diagnosed, lack of ceiling effect) was superior to the MMSE (optimal cutoff point = 29/30, 54% correctly diagnosed, presence of ceiling effect).
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, but not the Mini-Mental State Examination, has adequate psychometric properties as a screening instrument for the detection of mild cognitive impairment or dementia in Parkinson disease. However, a positive screen using either instrument requires additional assessment due to suboptimal specificity at the recommended screening cutoff point.
= Alzheimer disease;
= area under the curve;
= deep brain stimulation;
= Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition;
= Geriatric Depression Scale;
= Hopkins Verbal Learning Test;
= instrumental activities of daily living;
= mild cognitive impairment;
= Mini-Mental State Examination;
= Montreal Cognitive Assessment;
= negative predictive value;
= Parkinson disease;
= Parkinson disease dementia;
= positive predictive value;
= quality of life;
= receiver operating characteristic;
= Tower of London-Drexel;
= Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale.
PMCID: PMC2788810  PMID: 19933974
2.  Subgrouping low back pain: A comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire 
Clinicians require brief, practical tools to help identify low back pain (LBP) subgroups requiring early, targeted secondary prevention. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was recently validated to subgroup LBP patients into early treatment pathways.
To test the SBT’s concurrent validity against an existing, popular LBP subgrouping tool, the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ), and to compare the clinical characteristics of subgroups identified by each tool.
Two hundred and forty-four consecutive ‘non-specific’ LBP consulters at 8 UK GP practices aged 18–59 years were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included the ÖMPSQ and SBT, disability, fear, catastrophising, pain intensity, episode duration and demographics. Instruments were compared using Spearman’s correlations, tests for subgroup agreement and discriminant analysis of subgroup characteristics according to reference standards.
Completed SBT (9-items) and ÖMPSQ (24-items) data was available for 130/244 patients (53%). The correlation of SBT and ÖMPSQ scores was ‘excellent (rs = 0.80). Subgroup characteristics were similar across the low, medium and high subgroups, but, the proportions allocated to ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ risk groups were different, with fewer patients in the SBT’s high risk group. Both instruments similarly discriminated for reference standards such as disability, catastrophising, fear, comorbid pain and time off work. The ÖMPSQ was better at discriminating pain intensity, while the SBT was better for discriminating bothersomeness of back pain and referred leg pain.
The SBT baseline psychometrics performed similarly to the ÖMPSQ, but the SBT is shorter and easier to score and is an appropriate alternative for identifying high risk LBP patients in primary care.
PMCID: PMC2809923  PMID: 19223271
Low back pain; Classification; Primary care; Early identification; Psychological factors
3.  Feasibility of the STarT back screening tool in chiropractic clinics: a cross-sectional study of patients with low back pain 
The STarT back screening tool (SBT) allocates low back pain (LBP) patients into three risk groups and is intended to assist clinicians in their decisions about choice of treatment. The tool consists of domains from larger questionnaires that previously have been shown to be predictive of non-recovery from LBP. This study was performed to describe the distribution of depression, fear avoidance and catastrophising in relation to the SBT risk groups. A total of 475 primary care patients were included from 19 chiropractic clinics. They completed the SBT, the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Associations between the continuous scores of the psychological questionnaires and the SBT were tested by means of linear regression, and the diagnostic performance of the SBT in relation to the other questionnaires was described in terms of sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios.
In this cohort 59% were in the SBT low risk, 29% in the medium risk and 11% in high risk group. The SBT risk groups were positively associated with all of the psychological questionnaires. The SBT high risk group had positive likelihood ratios for having a risk profile on the psychological scales ranging from 3.8 (95% CI 2.3 - 6.3) for the MDI to 7.6 (95% CI 4.9 - 11.7) for the FABQ. The SBT questionnaire was feasible to use in chiropractic practice and risk groups were related to the presence of well-established psychological prognostic factors. If the tool proves to predict prognosis in future studies, it would be a relevant alternative in clinical practice to other more comprehensive questionnaires.
PMCID: PMC3105955  PMID: 21526986
4.  Comparative accuracies of two common screening instruments for the classification of Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment and healthy aging 
To compare the utility and diagnostic accuracy of the MoCA and MMSE in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in a clinical cohort.
321 AD, 126 MCI and 140 older adults with healthy cognition (HC) were evaluated using the the MMSE, MoCA, a standardized neuropsychological battery according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry of Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-NB) and an informant based measure of functional impairment, the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS). Diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off scores were calculated for each measure, and a method for converting MoCA to MMSE scores is presented also.
The MMSE and MoCA offer reasonably good diagnostic and classification accuracy as compared to the more detailed CERAD-NB; however, as a brief cognitive screening measure the MoCA was more sensitive and had higher classification accuracy for differentiating MCI from HC. Complementing the MMSE or the MoCA with the DSRS significantly improved diagnostic accuracy.
The current results support recent data indicating that the MoCA is superior to the MMSE as a global assessment tool, particularly in discerning earlier stages of cognitive decline. In addition, we found that overall diagnostic accuracy improves when the MMSE or MoCA is combined with an informant-based functional measure. Finally, we provide a reliable and easy conversion of MoCA to MMSE scores. However, the need for MCI-specific measures is still needed to increase the diagnostic specificity between AD and MCI.
PMCID: PMC4036230  PMID: 23260866
Alzheimer’s disease; Mild Cognitive Impairment; MMSE; MoCA; Diagnostic accuracy
An informant-based screening tool for dementia may be useful in population-based studies of minority populations.
Investigate the feasibility of screening for very mild dementia in a community sample of African Americans using an informant-based screening tool (AD8).
Cohort study
147 persons from the African American Health (AAH) project were screened for dementia; 61 of 93 who were invited had follow-up clinical assessments for dementia diagnosis.
The AD8, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Short Blessed Test (SBT), Brief Instrument for Dementia Detection (BIDD), and a neuropsychological battery were administered at visit 1. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) was administered at visit 2 by clinicians blinded to visit 1 results; the presence of dementia was determined by a CDR greater than 0.
465 individuals from the AAH cohort were sent a letter describing the study and, among this group, 252 individuals were contacted by phone to request participation in this study. 6% (14 / 252) of participants contacted by phone were unable to identify an informant (required for the AD8). 150 individuals agreed by phone to participate of which 2% (n=3) did not have an informant available at the time of participation. The AD8 alone was effective at discriminating between CDR 0 and CDR 0.5 (area under the curve = .847; p <.001; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.96).
A brief informant-based instrument, the AD8, has high sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing CDR 0 from CDR 0.5 in the community. Informant availability may not be a barrier to using the AD8 in an African American community sample; however, further study in larger samples with a higher response rate, different community settings (e.g., community clinics), and among older age groups (e.g., age 75+) is warranted to confirm this.
PMCID: PMC2763355  PMID: 19484913
African Americans; Dementia; Screening
6.  A Quick Test of Cognitive Speed (AQT): Usefulness in dementia evaluations in primary care 
Objective. To validate A Quick Test of Cognitive Speed (AQT) as an instrument in diagnostic dementia evaluations against final clinical diagnosis and compare AQT with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT) in primary care. Design. Primary health care cohort survey. Setting. Four primary health care centres and a geriatric memory clinic in Sweden. Patients. 81 patients (age 65 and above) were included: 52 with cognitive symptoms and 29 presumed cognitively healthy. None of the patients had a previous documented dementia diagnosis. All patients performed MMSE, CDT, and AQT at the primary health care clinic and were referred for extensive neuropsychological testing at a memory clinic. AQT was validated against final clinical diagnosis determined by a geriatric specialist and a neuropsychologist. Main outcome measures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), likelihood ratios, correlation data, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Results. For MMSE, sensitivity and specificity was 0.587 and 0.909; CDT 0.261 and 0.879; and AQT 0.783 and 0.667, respectively. For the combination of MMSE and CDT, sensitivity and specificity was 0.696 and 0.788, for MMSE and AQT 0.913 and 0.636. The ROC curve for AQT showed an area under curve (AUC) of 0.773. Conclusion. Our results suggest AQT is a usable test for dementia assessments in primary care. Sensitivity for AQT is superior to CDT, equivalent to MMSE, and comparable to the combination MMSE and CDT. MMSE in combination with AQT improves sensitivity. Because AQT is user-friendly and quickly administered, it could be applicable for primary care settings.
PMCID: PMC3587304  PMID: 23293859
Alzheimer's disease; dementia; general practice; A Quick Test of Cognitive Speed (AQT); Clock Drawing Test (CDT); Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE); primary care; Sweden
7.  Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Reserve 
Archives of neurology  2008;65(11):1467-1471.
To evaluate the cognitive reserve hypothesis by examining whether individuals of greater educational attainment have better cognitive function than individuals with less education in the presence of elevated fibrillar brain amyloid.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Uptake of N-methyl-[11C]2-(4′-methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroybenzothiazole, or [11C]PIB for “Pittsburgh Compound-B,” was measured for participants assessed between August 15, 2003 and January 8, 2008 at the Washington University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and diagnosed either as nondemented (N=161) or with dementia of the Alzheimer type (N=37). Multiple regression was used to determine whether [11C]PIB uptake interacted with level of educational attainment to predict cognitive function.
Main Outcome Measures
Scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), and Short Blessed Test (SBT), and individual measures from a psychometric battery.
[11C]PIB uptake interacted with years of education in predicting scores on the CDR-SB (p=.003), the MMSE (p<.001), the SBT (p=.03) and a measure of verbal abstract reasoning and conceptualization (p=.02), such that performance on these measures increased with increasing education for participants with elevated PIB uptake. Education was unrelated to global cognitive functioning scores among those with lower PIB uptake.
These results support the hypothesis that cognitive reserve influences the association between Alzheimer disease pathology and cognition.
PMCID: PMC2752218  PMID: 19001165
8.  Diagnostic performance of a combination of Mini-Mental State Examination and Clock Drawing Test in detecting Alzheimer’s disease 
Because of the growing need for quick cognitive screening tests to distinguish Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from mild cognitive impairment (MCI), we compare the diagnostic performance of a combination of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a Clock Drawing Test (CDT) to the Japanese version of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-J cog) in differentiating between patients with AD, patients with MCI, and healthy controls (HC).
Data from 146 subjects with AD and 60 subjects with MCI, as well as 49 HC, was retrospectively analyzed. We used logistic regression analysis with diagnosis as dependent variables and scores of the MMSE, the CDT-command, and the CDT-copy as independent variables, and receiver operating characteristic analysis to distinguish patients with AD from patients with MCI or HC.
When patients with AD were compared to HC, the independent predictors of AD were scores on the MMSE and the CDT-command. This combination was more sensitive than the MMSE alone and has nearly the same sensitivity and specificity as the ADAS-J cog. When patients with AD were compared to patients with MCI, the independent predictors were the MMSE and the CDT-copy. This combination was more sensitive and specific than the MMSE alone and was almost as sensitive and specific as the ADAS-J cog.
The combination of the MMSE and the CDT could be a powerful screening tool for differentiating between patients with AD, patients with MCI, and HC. Its sensitivity and specificity are comparable to ADAS-J cog, which takes more time.
PMCID: PMC3645949  PMID: 23662057
diagnostic techniques; Alzheimer’s disease; mild cognitive impairment; Clock Drawing Test; Mini-Mental State Examination
9.  Canadian Academy of Geriatric Psychiatry Survey of Brief Cognitive Screening Instruments 
Canadian Geriatrics Journal  2013;16(2):54-60.
The use of brief cognitive screening instruments is essential in the assessment of dementia. The purpose of this study is to determine the frequency of use and perceived characteristics of cognitive screening instruments among Canadian psychogeriatric clinicians.
Members of the Canadian Academy of Geriatric Psychiatry (CAGP) and attendees to the 2010 Annual Scientific Meeting were asked to complete a computerized survey. This survey assessed the perceived characteristics and frequency of use of 14 instruments.
The survey had a 55% response rate, with a total of 155 respondents. The most commonly used instruments are the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Delayed Word Recall. Effectiveness, ease of administration, and speed of administration were the perceived characteristics of instruments most correlated with frequency of use.
Consistent with previous surveys, a small number of cognitive screening instruments are used by the majority of clinicians. Use of the CDT and the MMSE were comparable. To our knowledge, this is the first survey demonstrating that the MMSE is not the most commonly used tool, and other, newer instruments like the MoCA, are gaining prominence.
PMCID: PMC3671013  PMID: 23737930
cognitive screening; dementia screening; Clock Drawing Test (CDT); Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); neuropsychiatry; geriatric psychiatry; cognitive testing
10.  The Philadelphia Brief Assessment of Cognition (PBAC): A Validated Screening Measure for Dementia 
The Clinical Neuropsychologist  2011;25(8):1314-1330.
The Philadelphia Brief Assessment of the Cognition (PBAC) is a brief dementia-screening instrument. The PBAC assesses five cognitive domains: working memory/executive control; lexical retrieval/language; visuospatial/visuoconstructional operations; verbal/visual episodic memory; and behavior/social comportment. A revised version of the PBAC was administered to 198 participants including patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (n=46) and four groups of patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) syndromes: behavioral-variant FTD (bvFTD; n=65), semantic-variant primary progressive aphasia (PPA) (svPPA; n=22), non-fluent/agrammatic-variant PPA (nfaPPA; n=23), and corticobasal syndrome (CBS; n=42), and a group of normal controls (n=15). The total PBAC score was highly correlated with the MMSE. The criterion validity of the PBAC was assessed relative to standard neuropsychological test performance. Using standard neuropsychological test performance as a criterion, the total PBAC score accurately identified the presence and severity of dementia. Intra-class correlations between PBAC subscales and standard neuropsychological tests were highly significant. PBAC subscales demonstrated good clinical utility in distinguishing AD and FTD subtypes using receiver operating characteristic analysis and standard diagnostic performance statistics to determine optimal subscale cut scores. The PBAC is a valid tool and able to assesses differential patterns neuropsychological/behavioral impairment in a broad range of neurodegenerative conditions.
PMCID: PMC3297195  PMID: 22084867
Alzheimer’s disease; Frontotemporal lobar dementia; Frontotemporal dementia; FTD; Philadelphia Brief Assessment of the Cognition; PBAC; Neuropsychological assessment; Philadelphia (repeatable) Verbal Learning Test
11.  Korean Version of Mini Mental Status Examination for Dementia Screening and Its' Short Form 
Psychiatry Investigation  2010;7(2):102-108.
We developed a Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) optimized for screening dementia (MMSE-DS) and its' short form (SMMSE-DS).
We constructed the MMSE-DS using the items of the two current Korean versions of MMSE and then construct the SMMSE-DS consisted of 13 items from the MMSE-DS based on the diagnostic accuracy of individual items for dementia. We investigated reliability and validity of MMSE-DS and SMMSE-DS on 1,555 subjects (1,222 nondemented controls, 333 dementia patients). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the SMMSE-DS with that of the three full Korean versions of MMSE, and examined its' age- and education-specific optimal cutoff scores for dementia.
The internal consistency obtained by Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.826. The inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability were 0.968 (p<0.001) and 0.825 (p<0.001), respectively. It showed significant correlation with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (r=-0.698, p<0.05) and the three full Korean versions of MMSE (r=0.839-0.938, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operator curve for dementia of the SMMSE-DS was larger than those of the three full Korean versions of MMSE (p<0.001). Age, education and gender explained 19.4% of the total variance of SMMSE-DS scores. The optimal cutoff scores for dementia of the SMMSE-DS were estimated differently by age and educational attainment of the subjects.
The SMMSE-DS was found to be accurate, brief and portable instrument for screening dementia in Korean elders, and may be particularly useful for screening dementia in elderly populations with wide variation in educational levels.
PMCID: PMC2890863  PMID: 20577618
Mini-Mental Status Examination; Short form; Dementia; Validity; Reliability; Korean
12.  The Sensitivity and Specificity of Cognitive Screening Instruments to Detect Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults With Severe Psychiatric Illness 
Older adults with severe psychiatric illness are often treated at community mental health centers (CMHCs) and these individuals commonly have numerous risk factors for cognitive impairment (CI). Brief cognitive screening instruments are frequently used to evaluate cognitive functioning in CMHCs, but the validity of these measures for detecting CI has not been adequately evaluated in this patient population.
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of 2 cognitive screening measures (the Mini-Mental Status Examination [MMSE] and the Stroop Color and Word Test [SCWT]) for detecting CI in a sample of older adults with severe psychiatric illness.
Data were collected from 52 older adults receiving services at a CMHC. Diagnosis of CI was made by a neuropsychologist. Sensitivity and specificity coefficients for 2 cutoff scores for the MMSE and the SCWT were calculated.
A cutoff score of 25 on the MMSE yielded a sensitivity of 43.3% and a specificity of 90.4% for detecting CI, whereas a cutoff score of 21 yielded sensitivity of 13.1% and 100% specificity. Using an age- and education-corrected scaled score (SS) on the SCWT falling at or below 7 as the criterion the SCWT had 88.8% sensitivity and 36.8% specificity, whereas a cutoff score of 5 or below yielded sensitivity of 59.2% and specificity of 57.8%.
Overall, the MMSE was found to be the more clinically useful cognitive screening tool for use in CMHC. Yet, because of the poor sensitivity of the MMSE for detecting CI in this patient population, alternative screening methods should be explored.
PMCID: PMC3239217  PMID: 20101070
cognitive impairment; geriatric; Community Mental Health Center; Mini-Mental State Examination; Stroop Color and Word Test; sensitivity; specificity; severe psychiatric illness; depression; schizophrenia
13.  Diagnostic Validity of Age- And Education-Corrections for the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in African American Elders 
To investigate whether demographic (age and education) adjustments for the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) attenuate mean score discrepancies between African American and Caucasian adults, and to determine whether demographically-adjusted MMSE scores improve the diagnostic classification accuracy of dementia in African American adults when compared to unadjusted MMSE scores.
Cross-sectional study.
Community-dwelling adults participating in the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Registry (ADPR) and Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC).
Three thousand two hundred fifty-four adults (2819 Caucasian, 435 African American) aged 60 and older.
MMSE at study entry.
African American adults obtained significantly lower unadjusted MMSE scores (23.0 ± 7.4) compared to Caucasian adults (25.3 ± 5.4). This discrepancy persisted despite adjustment of MMSE scores for age and years of education using established regression weights or newly-derived weights. However, controlling for dementia severity at baseline and adjusting MMSE scores for age and quality of education attenuated this discrepancy. Among African American adults, an age- and education-adjusted MMSE cut score of 23/24 provided optimal dementia classification accuracy, but this represented only a modest improvement over an unadjusted MMSE cut score of 22/23. The posterior probability of dementia in African American adults is presented for various unadjusted MMSE cut scores and prevalence rates of dementia.
Age, dementia severity at study entry, and quality of educational experience are important explanatory factors to understand the existing discrepancies in MMSE performance between Caucasian and African American adults. Our findings support the use of unadjusted MMSE scores when screening African American elders for dementia, with an unadjusted MMSE cut score of 22/23 yielding optimal classification accuracy.
PMCID: PMC3288600  PMID: 22150301
MMSE; African American; ethnicity; dementia; cognition
14.  Detecting Dementia with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in Highly Educated Individuals 
Archives of neurology  2008;65(7):963-967.
To evaluate the utility of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores in detecting cognitive dysfunction in a sample of highly educated individuals.
Archival data were reviewed on 4248 participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) and Alzheimer's Disease Patient Registry (ADPR).
1141 primarily Caucasian (93%) individuals with 16 or more years of self-reported education were identified. These included 307 (164 males and 143 females) dementia cases (any type), 176 patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (106 males and 70 females), and 658 nondemented controls (242 males and 416 females).
Mayo Clinic ADRC and ADPR cohort.
Main Outcome Measures
Diagnostic accuracy estimates (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power) of MMSE cut-scores in detecting cognitive dysfunction.
In this sample of highly educated, largely Caucasian older adults, the standard MMSE cut-score of 24 (23 or below) yielded a sensitivity of .66, specificity of .99 and an overall correct classification rate of 89% in detecting dementia. A cut score to 27 (26 or below) resulted in an optimal balance of sensitivity and specificity (.89 and .91, respectively) with an overall correct classification rate of 90%. In a cognitively impaired group (dementia and MCI), a cut-score of 27 (sensitivity = .69, specificity = .91) or 28 (sensitivity and specificity = .78) might be more appropriate.
Elderly patients with college education who present with complaints of cognitive decline (self- or other-report) and score below 27 on the MMSE are at greater risk of being diagnosed with dementia and should be referred for a comprehensive dementia evaluation, including formal neuropsychological testing.
PMCID: PMC2587038  PMID: 18625866
Alzheimer's disease; dementia; Mini-Mental State Examination; diagnosis
15.  Computer Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment 
Postgraduate medicine  2009;121(2):177-185.
Many older individuals experience cognitive decline with aging. The causes of cognitive dysfunction range from the devastating effects of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to treatable causes of dysfunction and the normal mild forgetfulness described by many older individuals. Even mild cognitive dysfunction can impact medication adherence, impair decision making, and affect the ability to drive or work. However, primary care physicians do not routinely screen for cognitive difficulties and many older patients do not report cognitive problems. Identifying cognitive impairment at an office visit would permit earlier referral for diagnostic work-up and treatment. The Computer Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI) is a self-administered, user-friendly computer test that scores automatically and can be completed independently in a quiet space, such as a doctor’s examination room. The goal of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the CAMCI and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in 524 nondemented individuals > 60 years old who completed a comprehensive neuropsychological and clinical assessment together with the CAMCI and MMSE. We hypothesized that the CAMCI would exhibit good sensitivity and specificity and would be superior compared with the MMSE in these measures. The results indicated that the MMSE was relatively insensitive to MCI. In contrast, the CAMCI was highly sensitive (86%) and specific (94%) for the identification of MCI in a population of community-dwelling nondemented elderly individuals.
PMCID: PMC2699993  PMID: 19332976
mild cognitive impairment; cognition; neuropsychological assessment; computer tests; elderly; Alzheimer’s disease; dementia; diagnostic screening
16.  Multi-Detector Computed Tomography Angiography for Coronary Artery Disease 
Executive Summary
Computed tomography (CT) scanning continues to be an important modality for the diagnosis of injury and disease, most notably for indications of the head and abdomen. (1) According to a recent report published by the Canadian Institutes of Health Information, (1) there were about 10.3 scanners per million people in Canada as of January 2004. Ontario had the fewest number of CT scanners per million compared to the other provinces (8 CT scanners per million). The wait time for CT in Ontario of 5 weeks approaches the Canadian median of 6 weeks.
This health technology and policy appraisal systematically reviews the published literature on multidetector CT (MDCT) angiography as a diagnostic tool for the newest indication for CT, coronary artery disease (CAD), and will apply the results of the review to current health care practices in Ontario. This review does not evaluate MDCT to detect coronary calcification without contrast medium for CAD screening purposes.
The Technology
Compared with conventional CT scanning, MDCT can provide smaller pieces of information and can cover a larger area faster. (2) Advancing MDCT technology (8, 16, 32, 64 slice systems) is capable of producing more images in less time. For general CT scanning, this faster capability can reduce the time that patients must stay still during the procedure, thereby reducing potential movement artefact. However, the additional clinical utility of images obtained from faster scanners compared to the images obtained from conventional CT scanners for current CT indications (i.e., non-moving body parts) is not known.
There are suggestions that the new fast scanners can reduce wait times for general CT. MDCT angiography that utilizes a contrast medium, has been proposed as a minimally invasive replacement to coronary angiography to detect coronary artery disease. MDCT may take between 15 to 45 minutes; coronary angiography may take up to 1 hour.
Although 16-slice and 32-slice CT scanners have been available for a few years, 64-slice CT scanners were released only at the end of 2004.
Review Strategy
There are many proven, evidence-based indications for conventional CT. It is not clear how MDCT will add to the clinical utility and management of patients for established CT indications. Therefore, because cardiac imaging, specifically MDCT angiography, is a new indication for CT, this literature review focused on the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of MDCT angiography compared with coronary angiography in the diagnosis and management of people with CAD.
This review asked the following questions:
Is the most recent MDCT angiography effective in the imaging of the coronary arteries compared with conventional angiography to correctly diagnose of significant (> 50% lumen reduction) CAD?
What is the utility of MDCT angiography in the management and treatment of patients with CAD?
How does MDCT angiography in the management and treatment of patients with CAD affect longterm outcomes?
The published literature from January 2003 to January 31, 2005 was searched for articles that focused on the detection of coronary artery disease using 16-slice CT or faster, compared with coronary angiography. The search yielded 138 articles; however, 125 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (comparison with coronary angiography, diagnostic accuracy measures calculated, and a sample size of 20 or more). As screening for CAD is not advised, studies that utilized MDCT for this purpose or studies that utilized MDCT without contrast media were also excluded. Overall, 13 studies were included in this review.
Summary of Findings
The published literature focused on 16-slice CT angiography for the detection of CAD. Two abstracts that were presented at the 2005 European Congress of Radiology meeting in Vienna compared 64-slice CT angiography with coronary angiography.
The 13 studies focussing on 16-slice CT angiography were stratified into 2 groups: Group 1 included 9 studies that focused on the detection of CAD in symptomatic patients, and Group 2 included 4 studies that examined the use of 16-slice CT angiography to detect disease progression after cardiac interventions. The 2 abstracts on 64-slice CT angiography were presented separately, but were not critically appraised due to the lack of information provided in the abstracts.
16-Slice Computed Tomography Angiography
The STARD initiative to evaluate the reporting quality of studies that focus on diagnostic tests was used. Overall the studies were relatively small (fewer than 100 people), and only about one-half recruited consecutive patients. Most studies reported inclusion criteria, but 5 did not report exclusion criteria. In these 5, the patients were highly selected; therefore, how representative they are of the general population of people with suspicion if CAD or those with disease progression after cardiac intervention is questionable. In most studies, patients were either already taking, or were given, β-blockers to reduce their heart rates to improve image quality sufficiently. Only 6 of the 13 studies reported interobserver reliability quantitatively. The studies typically assessed the quality of the images obtained from 16-slice CT angiography, excluded those of poor quality, and compared the rest with the gold standard, coronary angiography. This practice necessarily inflated the diagnostic accuracy measures. Only 3 studies reported confidence intervals around their measures.
Evaluation of the studies in Group 1 reported variable sensitivity, from just over 60% to 96%, but a more stable specificity, at more than 95%. The false positive rate ranged from 5% to 8%, but the false negative rate was at best under 10% and at worst about 30%. This means that up to one-third of patients who have disease may be missed. These patients may therefore progress to a more severe level of disease and require more invasive procedures. The calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios across the studies suggested that 16-slice CT angiography may be useful to detect disease, but it is not useful to rule out disease. The prevalence of disease, measured by conventional coronoary angiography, was from 50% to 80% across the studies in this review. Overall, 16-slice CT angiography may be useful, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that it is equivalent to or better than coronary angiography to detect CAD in symptomatic patients.
In the 4 studies in Group 2, sensitivity and specificity were both reported at more than 95% (except for 1 that reported sensitivity of about 80%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios suggested that the test might be useful to detect disease progression in patients who had cardiac interventions. However, 2 of the 4 studies recruited patients who had been asymptomatic since their intervention. As many of the patients studied were not symptomatic, the relevance of performing MDCT angiography in the patient population may be in question.
64-Slice Computed Tomography Angiography
An analysis from the interim results based on 2 abstracts revealed that 64-slice CT angiography was insufficient compared to coronary angiography and may not be better than 16-slice CT angiography to detect CAD.
Cardiac imaging is a relatively new indication for CT. A systematic review of the literature was performed from 2003 to January 2005 to determine the effectiveness of MDCT angiography (16-slice and 64-slice) compared to coronary angiography to detect CAD. At the time of this report, there was no published literature on 64-slice CT for any indications.
Based on this review, the Medical Advisory Secretariat concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that 16-slice or 64-slice CT angiography is equal to or better than coronary angiography to diagnose CAD in people with symptoms or to detect disease progression in patients who had previous cardiac interventions. An analysis of the evidence suggested that in investigating suspicion of CAD, a substantial number of patients would be missed. This means that these people would not be appropriately treated. These patients might progress to more severe disease and possibly more adverse events. Overall, the clinical utility of MDCT in patient management and long-term outcomes is unknown.
Based on the current evidence, it is unlikely that CT angiography will replace coronary angiography completely, but will probably be used adjunctively with other cardiac diagnostic tests until more definitive evidence is published.
If multi-slice CT scanners are used for coronary angiography in Ontario, access to the current compliment of CT scanners will necessarily increase wait times for general CT scanning. It is unlikely that these newer-generation scanners will improve patient throughput, despite the claim that they are faster.
Screening for CAD in asymptomatic patients and who have no history of ischemic heart disease using any modality is not advised, based on the World Health Organization criteria for screening. Therefore, this review did not examine the use of multi-slice CT for this purpose.
PMCID: PMC3382628  PMID: 23074474
17.  The value of clock drawing in identifying executive cognitive dysfunction in people with a normal Mini-Mental State Examination score 
Executive cognitive dysfunction can precede the memory disturbances of dementia. People with executive cognitive dysfunction can have a normal Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score but still have severe functional limitations. We evaluated the usefulness of clock drawing in identifying people with executive dysfunction who have a normal MMSE score.
We reviewed the charts of consecutive patients referred between July 1999 and June 2000 to a multidisciplinary geriatric assessment clinic because of concerns about functional inabilities. The patients had all undergone the Executive Interview for the diagnosis of executive cognitive dysfunction as well as an MMSE and clock-drawing test (scored by 2 methods: one described by Watson and colleagues [the Watson method] and one described by Sunderland and colleagues [the Sunderland method]).
We reviewed the charts of 68 patients (40 women, 28 men); their mean age was 79 years (range 55–94). Thirty-six patients had an MMSE score of less than 24, and 32 had a “normal” MMSE score (24–30). Among those with a normal MMSE score, 22 had an abnormal Executive Interview score. Using the Executive Interview as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the Watson method of scoring clock drawings to predict an abnormal Executive Interview score were 59% and 70% respectively; the corresponding values were 18% and 100% for the Sunderland method.
The presence of an abnormal MMSE score alerts clinicians to the possibility of cognitive impairment. For patients referred for geriatric assessment who have a normal MMSE score, a clock-drawing test, scored by either the Watson or the Sunderland method, is a moderately sensitive and specific adjunct for detecting executive cognitive dysfunction.
PMCID: PMC128397  PMID: 12406943
18.  Clinical Utility of Cognistat in Multiprofessional Team Evaluations of Patients with Cognitive Impairment in Swedish Primary Care 
Background. Diagnostic evaluations of dementia are often performed in primary health care (PHC). Cognitive evaluation requires validated instruments. Objective. To investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of Cognistat in a primary care population. Methods. Participants were recruited from 4 PHC centres; 52 had cognitive symptoms and 29 were presumed cognitively healthy. Participants were tested using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), and Cognistat. Clinical diagnoses, based on independent neuropsychological examination and a medical consensus discussion in secondary care, were used as criteria for diagnostic accuracy analyses. Results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.85, 0.79, 0.85, and 0.79, respectively, for Cognistat; 0.59, 0.91, 0.90, and 0.61 for MMSE; 0.26, 0.88, 0.75, and 0.46 for CDT; 0.70, 0.79, 0.82, and 0.65 for MMSE and CDT combined. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.82 for Cognistat, 0.75 for MMSE, 0.57 for CDT, and 0.74 for MMSE and CDT combined. Conclusions. The diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of Cognistat was better than the other tests alone or combined. Cognistat is well adapted for cognitive evaluations in PHC and can help the general practitioner to decide which patients should be referred to secondary care.
PMCID: PMC3980776  PMID: 24778877
19.  Specific patterns of cognitive impairment in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and Alzheimer's disease: a pilot study 
OBJECTIVES—Eleven patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) were selected from an initial cohort of 43 patients. The patients with NPH fell into two distinctive subgroups: preshunt, group 1 (n=5) scored less than 24 on the mini mental state examination (MMSE) and were classified as demented and group 2 (n=6) scored 24 or above on the MMSE and were classified as non-demented.
METHODS—All patients were neuropsychologically assessed on two occasions: preshunt and then again 6 months postshunt. Group 1 completed the mini mental state examination (MMSE) and the Kendrick object learning test (KOLT). In addition to the MMSE and KOLT, group 2 completed further tasks including verbal fluency and memory and attentional tasks from the CANTAB battery. Nine of the 11patients also underwent postshunt MRI.
RESULTS—Group 1, who, preshunt, performed in the dementing range on both the MMSE and KOLT, showed a significant postoperative recovery, with all patients now scoring within the normal non-demented range. Group 2, although showing no signs of dementia according to the MMSE and KOLT either preshunt or postshunt, did show a specific pattern of impairment on tests sensitive to frontostriatal dysfunction compared with healthy volunteers, and this pattern remained postoperatively. Importantly, this pattern is distinct from that exhibited by patients with mild Alzheimer's disease. Eight of the nine patterns of structural damage corresponded well to cognitive performance.
CONCLUSIONS—These findings are useful for three main reasons: (1) they detail the structural and functional profile of impairment seen in NPH, (2) they demonstrate the heterogeneity found in this population and show how severity of initial cognitive impairment can affect outcome postshunt, and (3) they may inform and provide a means of monitoring the cognitive outcome of new procedures in shunt surgery.

PMCID: PMC1736677  PMID: 10567486
20.  Detection of dementia in primary care: comparison of the original and a modified Mini‐Cog Assessment with the Mini‐Mental State Examination 
Mental Health in Family Medicine  2009;6(4):209-217.
Background Dementia is considered widely under‐detected in primary care, and general practitioners (GPs) frequently ask for easy to use tools to assist in its early detection.
Aim To determine the degree of correlation between the Mini‐Cog Assessment (Mini‐Cog) as performed by GPs and the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Design of study This was a prospective study (2005, 2006) comparing two cognitive screening instruments.
Setting Ten general practices in Austria, with patients with a hitherto undiagnosed suspicion of dementia seen consecutively.
Method Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs) of the Mini‐Cog (applying both a colour‐coded and the original rating method) were assessed for degree of correlation with the MMSE. In phase one GPs examined patients suspected of having dementia using the Mini‐Cog; in phase two a neurologist retested them applying the MMSE, a clock‐drawing test (CDT) and a routine clinical examination. A questionnaire on the practicability of the Mini‐Cog was answered by GPs.
Results Of the 107 patients who participated 86 completed the whole study protocol. The Mini‐Cog, as performed by the ten GPs, displayed a sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.98), a specificity of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.71), a PPV of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.61) and an NPV of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.99) as against the MMSE carried out by neurologists. The GPs judged the Mini‐Cog useful and time saving.
Conclusion The Mini‐Cog has a high sensitivity and acceptable specificity in the general practice setting and has proved to be a practicable tool for the diagnosis of dementia in primary care.
PMCID: PMC2873877  PMID: 22477912
dementia; early detection; family practice
21.  Effectiveness and costs of phototest in dementia and cognitive impairment screening 
BMC Neurology  2011;11:92.
To assess and compare the effectiveness and costs of Phototest, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) to screen for dementia (DEM) and cognitive impairment (CI).
A phase III study was conducted over one year in consecutive patients with suspicion of CI or DEM at four Primary Care (PC) centers. After undergoing all screening tests at the PC center, participants were extensively evaluated by researchers blinded to screening test results in a Cognitive-Behavioral Neurology Unit (CBNU). The gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists. Effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and by the kappa index of concordance between test results and gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices and hospital accounts.
The study included 140 subjects (48 with DEM, 37 with CI without DEM, and 55 without CI). The MIS could not be applied to 23 illiterate subjects (16.4%). For DEM, the maximum effectiveness of the MMSE was obtained with different cutoff points as a function of educational level [k = 0.31 (95% Confidence interval [95%CI], 0.19-0.43), DA = 0.60 (95%CI, 0.52-0.68)], and that of the MIS with a cutoff of 3/4 [k = 0.63 (95%CI, 0.48-0.78), DA = 0.83 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)]. Effectiveness of the Phototest [k = 0.71 (95%CI, 0.59-0.83), DA = 0.87 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)] was similar to that of the MIS and higher than that of the MMSE. Costs were higher with MMSE (275.9 ± 193.3€ [mean ± sd euros]) than with Phototest (208.2 ± 196.8€) or MIS (201.3 ± 193.4€), whose costs did not significantly differ. For CI, the effectiveness did not significantly differ between MIS [k = 0.59 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.97)] and Phototest [k = 0.58 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.78 (95%CI, 0.64-0.95)] and was lowest for the MMSE [k = 0.27 (95%CI, 0.09-0.45), DA = 0.69 (95%CI, 0.56-0.84)]. Costs were higher for MMSE (393.4 ± 121.8€) than for Phototest (287.0 ± 197.4€) or MIS (300.1 ± 165.6€), whose costs did not significantly differ.
MMSE is not an effective instrument in our setting. For both DEM and CI, the Phototest and MIS are more effective and less costly, with no difference between them. However, MIS could not be applied to the appreciable percentage of our population who were illiterate.
PMCID: PMC3160880  PMID: 21801419
22.  Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of delirium in older medical inpatients: a randomized trial 
Delirium is common and often goes undetected in older patients admitted to medical services. It is associated with poor outcomes. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of delirium in older patients admitted to a general medical service could reduce time to improvement in cognitive status.
Consecutive patients aged 65 or more who were newly admitted to 5 general medical units between Mar. 15, 1996, and Jan. 31, 1999, were screened with the Confusion Assessment Method within 24 hours after admission to detect prevalent delirium and rescreened within a week to detect incident cases. Patients with delirium were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or usual care. Subjects in the intervention group were seen by a geriatric specialist consultant and followed in hospital for up to 8 weeks by an intervention nurse who liaised with the consultant, attending physicians, family and the primary care nurses. Subjects in the usual care group received standard hospital services but could consult geriatric specialists as needed. A research assistant, blinded as to treatment allocation, administered within 24 hours after enrolment the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE), Delirium Index (measuring the severity of the delirium) and Barthel Index (measuring independence of personal care). Improvement was defined as an increase in the MMSE score of 2 or more points, with no decrease below baseline plus 2 points, or no decrease below a baseline MMSE score of 27. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly was completed to identify patients with possible dementia. Subjects were assessed 3 times during the first week and weekly thereafter for up to 8 weeks in hospital or until discharge. Data on clinical severity of illness, length of stay and living arrangements after discharge were also collected. The primary outcome measure was time to improvement in MMSE score.
Of the 1925 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were screened, 227 had prevalent or incident delirium and consented to participate (113 in intervention group and 114 in usual care group). There were no clinically significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups except for sex (female 58.4% v. 50.0%) and marital status (married 34.8% v. 41.2%). Overall, 48% of the patients in the intervention group and 45% of those in the usual care group met the predetermined criteria for improvement. The Cox proportional hazards ratio (HR) for a shorter time to improvement with the intervention versus usual care, adjusted for age, sex and marital status, was 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.63). There were no significant differences within 8 weeks after enrolment between the 2 groups in time to and rate of improvement of the Delirium Index, the Barthel Index, length of stay, rate of discharge to the community, living arrangements after discharge or survival. Outcomes between the 2 groups did not differ statistically significantly for patients without dementia (HR 1.54, 95% CI 0.80–2.97), for those who had less comorbidity (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.75–2.46) or for those with prevalent delirium (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.48–2.79).
Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of delirium does not appear to be more beneficial than usual care for older patients admitted to medical services.
PMCID: PMC126506  PMID: 12389836
23.  Management of dementia by family physicians in academic settings 
Canadian Family Physician  2006;52(9):1108.
To determine what proportion of patients with dementia seen by family physicians are assessed and managed according to the recommendations of the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia (CCCD).
Retrospective medical record review.
Outpatient services in university-affiliated family practice clinics in Calgary, Alta; Ottawa, Ont; and Toronto, Ont.
One hundred sixty patients who were diagnosed with dementia between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2004.
Use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); collateral history; physical examination maneuvers; initial laboratory tests; diagnostic imaging; caregiver identification, assessment, and referral; driving assessment; specialist referral patterns; and other recommendations of the CCCD.
The average age of patients assessed was 83 years; most patients (66.3%) were female. More than half (54.1%) were diagnosed with Alzheimer disease or vascular dementia. More than 25% of patients were not given a specific diagnosis: 13.1% were labeled as “dementia,” and 12.5% as “not yet diagnosed.” For most patients (69.6%) a collateral history was obtained and a primary caregiver identified (79.4%). Few physicians, however, assessed caregiver stress (33.1%) or referred caregivers for support (12.5%). Most patients (80.6%) seen by their family physicians for cognitive changes underwent at least one MMSE. The average score on the first MMSE was 23.5 (of 30) points. Most physicians ordered appropriate “basic” blood tests as part of their assessment. Forty percent of patients had computed tomographic examinations within 3 months of reporting symptoms of cognitive difficulties to their family physicians. Of these, 25% met the criteria for computed tomographic scan as recommended by the guidelines. Only 36.5% were asked about driving status or safety concerns and had this inquiry documented. Of those, 15.5% were referred for driving evaluations and 12.5% were reported to the Ministry of Transportation.
There is fair to good compliance with recommendations of the 1999 CCCD guidelines. There is, however, little assessment of caregiver coping and referral of caregivers for support. Similarly, there is little assessment of driver safety and referral for formal driving evaluations. Computed tomographic imaging as part of the evaluation of dementia is overused.
PMCID: PMC1783739  PMID: 17279222
24.  A Score Based on Screening Tests to Differentiate Mild Cognitive Impairment from Subjective Memory Complaints 
Neurology International  2013;5(3):e16.
It is not easy to differentiate patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from subjective memory complainers (SMC). Assessments with screening cognitive tools are essential, particularly in primary care where most patients are seen. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of screening cognitive tests and to propose a score derived from screening tests. Elderly subjects with memory complaints were evaluated using the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Brief Cognitive Battery (BCB). We added two delayed recalls in the MMSE (a delayed recall and a late-delayed recall, LDR), and also a phonemic fluency test of letter P fluency (LPF). A score was created based on these tests. The diagnoses were made on the basis of clinical consensus and neuropsychological testing. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to determine area under the curve (AUC), the sensitivity and specificity for each test separately and for the final proposed score. MMSE, LDR, LPF and delayed recall of BCB scores reach statistically significant differences between groups (P=0.000, 0.03, 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Sensitivity, specificity and AUC were MMSE: 64%, 79% and 0.75 (cut off <29); LDR: 56%, 62% and 0.62 (cut off <3); LPF: 71%, 71% and 0.71 (cut off <14); delayed recall of BCB: 56%, 82% and 0.68 (cut off <9). The proposed score reached a sensitivity of 88% and 76% and specificity of 62% and 75% for cut off over 1 and over 2, respectively. AUC were 0.81. In conclusion, a score created from screening tests is capable of discriminating MCI from SMC with moderate to good accurancy.
PMCID: PMC3794451  PMID: 24147213
mild cognitive impairment; subjective memory complaints; screening cognitive test; diagnostic score
25.  Performance on the Clock-in-the-Box in elders: normative performance, comparison to cognitive tests, and relationship to functional performance 
The American journal of medicine  2011;124(7):662-669.
The Clock-in-the-Box is a rapid (2 minute) cognitive screening tool. The purpose of this study was a) to compare the Clock-in-the-Box with the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and neuropsychological tests, b) to determine Clock-in-the-Box score normative values by age and education group, and c) to determine if the Clock-in-the-Box score is associated with measures of physical function.
Community-dwelling older participants in the Boston-area were recruited for a prospective, longitudinal study in which they completed a variety of cognitive and functional assessments.
At baseline, participants (n=798; mean age (±SD)=78.2 (±5.5) years; 14 (±3) mean years of education) completed in-home assessments of cognition – the Clock-in-the-Box and MMSE; measures of independent function - Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; and measures of physical function - Short Physical Performance Battery. Mean MMSE score was 27.1 (±1.6; range 0–30 – 0 worst) and mean Clock-in-the-Box was 6.2 (±1.6; range 0–8 – 0 worst). Performance on the Clock-in-the-Box was correlated (Spearman) with the MMSE (r=0.49, p<.001) and neuropsychological measures (r=0.37–0.50; p<.001). Higher Clock-in-the-Box score was significantly associated with no difficulty in Activities of Daily Living (χ2=39.6, p=<.001) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (χ2=35.5, p=<.001). Additionally, higher Clock-in-the-Box scores were associated with higher scores on the Short Physical Performance Battery (F=5.4, p<.001).
The Clock-in-the-Box is a brief cognitive screening test that is correlated with the MMSE, neuropsychological tests, and measures of independent and physical function in community-dwelling older adults.
PMCID: PMC3128995  PMID: 21592451
cognition; aged; function; dementia; screening; neuropsychological testing

Results 1-25 (1045198)