Davis Daniel H J, Creavin Sam T, Yip Jennifer L Y, Noel-Storr Anna H, Brayne Carol, Cullum Sarah
MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, 33 Bedford Place, London, UK, WC1B 5JU.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 29;2015(10):CD010775. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010775.pub2.
Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. Global prevalence is projected to increase, particularly in resource-limited settings. Recent policy changes in Western countries to increase detection mandates a careful examination of the diagnostic accuracy of neuropsychological tests for dementia.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at various thresholds for dementia and its subtypes.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO and LILACS databases to August 2012. In addition, we searched specialised sources containing diagnostic studies and reviews, including MEDION (Meta-analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Health Technology Assessment Database), ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) and C-EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine) databases. We also searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group specialized register of diagnostic and intervention studies). We identified further relevant studies from the PubMed 'related articles' feature and by tracking key studies in Science Citation Index and Scopus. We also searched for relevant grey literature from the Web of Science Core Collection, including Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), PhD theses and contacted researchers with potential relevant data.
Cross-sectional designs where all participants were recruited from the same sample were sought; case-control studies were excluded due to high chance of bias. We searched for studies from memory clinics, hospital clinics, primary care and community populations. We excluded studies of early onset dementia, dementia from a secondary cause, or studies where participants were selected on the basis of a specific disease type such as Parkinson's disease or specific settings such as nursing homes.
We extracted dementia study prevalence and dichotomised test positive/test negative results with thresholds used to diagnose dementia. This allowed calculation of sensitivity and specificity if not already reported in the study. Study authors were contacted where there was insufficient information to complete the 2x2 tables. We performed quality assessment according to the QUADAS-2 criteria.Methodological variation in selected studies precluded quantitative meta-analysis, therefore results from individual studies were presented with a narrative synthesis.
Seven studies were selected: three in memory clinics, two in hospital clinics, none in primary care and two in population-derived samples. There were 9422 participants in total, but most of studies recruited only small samples, with only one having more than 350 participants. The prevalence of dementia was 22% to 54% in the clinic-based studies, and 5% to 10% in population samples. In the four studies that used the recommended threshold score of 26 or over indicating normal cognition, the MoCA had high sensitivity of 0.94 or more but low specificity of 0.60 or less.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality and quantity of information is insufficient to make recommendations on the clinical utility of MoCA for detecting dementia in different settings. Further studies that do not recruit participants based on diagnoses already present (case-control design) but apply diagnostic tests and reference standards prospectively are required. Methodological clarity could be improved in subsequent DTA studies of MoCA by reporting findings using recommended guidelines (e.g. STARDdem). Thresholds lower than 26 are likely to be more useful for optimal diagnostic accuracy of MoCA in dementia, but this requires confirmation in further studies.
痴呆是一种进行性的全球认知障碍综合征,产生了巨大的健康和社会护理成本。预计全球患病率将会上升,尤其是在资源有限的地区。西方国家最近为增加痴呆症检测而进行的政策变革,要求仔细审视用于痴呆症诊断的神经心理学测试的诊断准确性。
确定蒙特利尔认知评估量表(MoCA)在痴呆及其亚型的不同阈值下的诊断准确性。
我们检索了截至2012年8月的MEDLINE、EMBASE、BIOSIS Previews、科学引文索引、PsycINFO和LILACS数据库。此外,我们还检索了包含诊断研究和综述的专业资源,包括MEDION(诊断研究的荟萃分析)、DARE(效果综述摘要数据库)、HTA(卫生技术评估数据库)、ARIF(积极研究情报设施)和C-EBLM(国际临床化学和检验医学联合会循证检验医学委员会)数据库。我们还检索了ALOIS(Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组诊断和干预研究专门注册库)。我们通过PubMed的“相关文章”功能以及追踪科学引文索引和Scopus中的关键研究,确定了更多相关研究。我们还从科学网核心合集(包括科学引文索引和会议论文引文索引(汤森路透科学网))、博士论文中搜索了相关灰色文献,并与拥有潜在相关数据的研究人员进行了联系。
寻求所有参与者均从同一样本中招募的横断面设计;由于存在较高偏倚可能性,排除病例对照研究。我们搜索了来自记忆诊所、医院诊所、初级保健机构和社区人群的研究。我们排除了早发性痴呆、继发原因导致的痴呆的研究,或基于特定疾病类型(如帕金森病)或特定环境(如养老院)选择参与者的研究。
我们提取了痴呆研究的患病率,并将测试阳性/测试阴性结果按照用于诊断痴呆的阈值进行二分法分类。如果研究中未报告,这将允许计算敏感性和特异性。在信息不足以完成2×2表格的情况下,我们会联系研究作者。我们根据QUADAS-2标准进行质量评估。所选研究中的方法学差异使得无法进行定量荟萃分析,因此对各个研究的结果进行了叙述性综合呈现。
共选取了7项研究:3项来自记忆诊所,2项来自医院诊所,没有来自初级保健机构的研究,2项来自人群样本。总共有9422名参与者,但大多数研究仅招募了小样本,只有一项研究的参与者超过350名。在基于诊所的研究中,痴呆患病率为22%至54%,在人群样本中为5%至10%。在4项使用推荐阈值分数26分及以上表示认知正常的研究中,MoCA具有0.94或更高的高敏感性,但特异性低至0.60或更低。
信息的总体质量和数量不足以就MoCA在不同环境中检测痴呆的临床效用提出建议。需要开展进一步的研究,这些研究不应基于已有的诊断招募参与者(病例对照设计),而是前瞻性地应用诊断测试和参考标准。在随后关于MoCA的诊断准确性研究(DTA)中,通过使用推荐指南(如STARDdem)报告研究结果,可以提高方法学的清晰度。低于26分的阈值可能对MoCA在痴呆诊断中的最佳准确性更有用,但这需要在进一步研究中得到证实。