4.5 Article

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination in detecting patients at higher risk of dementia

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 1749-1755

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610212001068

Keywords

mild cognitive impairment; memory clinics; screening

Funding

  1. National Medical Research Council [NMRC/CG/NUHS/2010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To examine the discriminant validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for dementia at a memory clinic setting. Methods: Memory clinic patients were administered the MoCA, MMSE, and a comprehensive formal neuropsychological battery. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes were dichotomized into two groups: single domain-MCI (sd-MCI) and multiple domain-MCI (md-MCI). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of the MoCA and the MMSE. Results: Two hundred thirty patients were recruited, of which 136 (59.1%) were diagnosed with dementia, 61 (26.5%) with MCI, and 33 (14.3%) with no cognitive impairment (NCI). The majority of MCI patients had md-MCI (n = 36, 59%). The MoCA had significantly larger AUCs than the MMSE in discriminating md-MCI from the lower risk group for incident dementia (NCI and sd-MCI) [MoCA 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.98) vs. MMSE 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92), p = 0.02). At their optimal cut-off points, the MoCA (19/20) remained superior to the MMSE (23/24) in detecting md-MCI [sensitivity: 0.83 vs. 0.72; specificity: 0.86 vs. 0.83; PPV: 0.79 vs. 0.72; NPV: 0.89 vs. 0.83; correctly classified: 85.1% vs. 78.7%]. Conclusion: The MoCA is superior to the MMSE in the detection of patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for incident dementia at a memory clinic setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available