Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019 Aug;20(8):1055.e1-1055.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.02.004. Epub 2019 Mar 23.
While various short variants of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) have been developed, they have not been compared among each other to determine the most optimal variant for routine use. This study evaluated the comparative performance of the short variants in identifying mild cognitive impairment or dementia (MCI/dementia).
Baseline data of a cohort study.
Alzheimer's Disease Centers across the United States.
Participants aged ≥50 years (n = 4606), with median age 70 (interquartile range 65-76).
Participants completed MoCA and were evaluated for MCI/dementia. The various short variants of MoCA were compared in their performance in discriminating MCI/dementia, using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs).
All 7 short variants of MoCA had acceptable performance in discriminating MCI/dementia from normal cognition (AUC 87.7%-91.0%). However, only 2 variants by Roalf et al (2016) and Wong et al (2015) demonstrated comparable performance (AUC 88.4-88.9%) to the original MoCA (AUC 89.3%). Among the participants with higher education, only the variant by Roalf et al had similar AUC to the original MoCA. At the optimal cut-off score of <25, the original MoCA demonstrated 84.4% sensitivity and 76.4% specificity. In contrast, the short variant by Roalf et al had 87.2% sensitivity and 72.1% specificity at its optimal cut-off score of <13.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The various short variants may not share similar diagnostic performance, with many limited by ceiling effects among participants with higher education. Only the short variant by Roalf et al was comparable to the original MoCA in identifying MCI or dementia even across education subgroups. This variant is one-third the length of the original MoCA and can be completed in <5 minutes. It provides a viable alternative when it is not feasible to administer the original MoCA in clinical practice and can be especially useful in nonspecialty clinics with large volumes of patients at high risk of cognitive impairment (such as those in primary care, geriatric, and stroke prevention clinics).
虽然已经开发出了蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)的各种简短变体,但尚未对其进行相互比较,以确定最适合常规使用的变体。本研究评估了简短变体在识别轻度认知障碍或痴呆(MCI/痴呆)方面的比较性能。
队列研究的基线数据。
美国各地的阿尔茨海默病中心。
年龄≥50 岁的参与者(n=4606),中位年龄为 70 岁(四分位间距为 65-76 岁)。
参与者完成了 MoCA 并接受了 MCI/痴呆的评估。使用接收器工作特征曲线下的面积(AUCs)比较 MoCA 的各种简短变体在区分 MCI/痴呆方面的性能。
MoCA 的所有 7 个简短变体在区分正常认知与 MCI/痴呆方面均具有可接受的性能(AUC 87.7%-91.0%)。然而,只有 Roalf 等人(2016 年)和 Wong 等人(2015 年)的 2 个变体表现出与原始 MoCA(AUC 88.4%-88.9%)相当的性能。在接受较高教育的参与者中,只有 Roalf 等人的变体与原始 MoCA 的 AUC 相似。在最佳截断分数<25 时,原始 MoCA 的敏感性为 84.4%,特异性为 76.4%。相比之下,Roalf 等人的简短变体在其最佳截断分数<13 时的敏感性为 87.2%,特异性为 72.1%。
结论/意义:各种简短变体可能没有相似的诊断性能,其中许多在接受较高教育的参与者中受到天花板效应的限制。只有 Roalf 等人的简短变体在识别 MCI 或痴呆方面与原始 MoCA 相当,即使在教育亚组中也是如此。该变体的长度是原始 MoCA 的三分之一,可在<5 分钟内完成。当在临床实践中无法进行原始 MoCA 时,它提供了一种可行的替代方法,并且在认知障碍风险较高的大量患者的非专业诊所中特别有用(例如在初级保健、老年和中风预防诊所中)。