4.6 Review

Validity of screening tools for dementia and mild cognitive impairment among the elderly in primary health care: a systematic review

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 169, Issue -, Pages 84-92

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.01.001

Keywords

Systematic review; Dementia; Mild cognitive impairment; Screening tool; Primary health care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This systematic review aims to provide updated and comprehensive evidence on the validity and feasibility of screening tools for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia among the elderly at primary healthcare level. Study design: A review of articles was performed. Methods: A search strategy was used by using electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for published studies and reference list of published studies. The articles were exported to a bibliographic database for further screening process. Two reviewers worked independently to screen results and extract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved and confirmed by the consensus of all authors. Results: There were three screening approaches for detecting MCI and dementia - screening by a healthcare provider, screening by a self-administered questionnaire and caretaker informant screening. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common and preferable tool for MCI screening (sensitivity [Sn]: 81-97%; specificity [Sp]: 60 -86%), whereas Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE) was the preferable tool for dementia screening (Sn: 79-100%; Sp: 86%). Conclusion: This systematic review found that there are three screening approaches for detecting early dementia and MCI at primary health care. ACE and MoCA are recommended tools for screening of dementia and MCI, respectively. (c) 2019 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available