School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 14;7(7):CD011414. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011414.pub3.
The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias relies on clinical assessment. There is a high prevalence of cognitive disorders, including undiagnosed dementia in secondary care settings. Short cognitive tests can be helpful in identifying those who require further specialist diagnostic assessment; however, there is a lack of consensus around the optimal tools to use in clinical practice. The Mini-Cog is a short cognitive test comprising three-item recall and a clock-drawing test that is used in secondary care settings.
The primary objective was to determine the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in a secondary care setting. The secondary objectives were to investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies and potential sources of heterogeneity. These potential sources of heterogeneity will include the baseline prevalence of dementia in study samples, thresholds used to determine positive test results, the type of dementia (Alzheimer's disease dementia or all causes of dementia), and aspects of study design related to study quality.
We searched the following sources in September 2012, with an update to 12 March 2019: Cochrane Dementia Group Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge), Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We made no exclusions with regard to language of Mini-Cog administration or language of publication, using translation services where necessary.
We included cross-sectional studies and excluded case-control designs, due to the risk of bias. We selected those studies that included the Mini-Cog as an index test to diagnose dementia where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with reference standard clinical assessment using standardised dementia diagnostic criteria. We only included studies in secondary care settings (including inpatient and outpatient hospital participants).
We screened all titles and abstracts generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted data into two-by-two tables to allow calculation of accuracy metrics for individual studies, reporting the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals of these measures, summarising them graphically using forest plots.
Three studies with a total of 2560 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, set in neuropsychology outpatient referrals, outpatients attending a general medicine clinic, and referrals to a memory clinic. Only n = 1415 (55.3%) of participants were included in the analysis to inform evaluation of Mini-Cog test accuracy, due to the selective use of available data by study authors. There were concerns related to high risk of bias with respect to patient selection, and unclear risk of bias and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. In all studies, the Mini-Cog was retrospectively derived from historic data sets. No studies included acute general hospital inpatients. The prevalence of dementia ranged from 32.2% to 87.3%. The sensitivities of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.71), 0.60 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.72), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.90). The specificity of the Mini-Cog for each individual study was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92), 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73), and 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). We did not perform meta-analysis due to concerns related to risk of bias and heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified only a limited number of diagnostic test accuracy studies using Mini-Cog in secondary care settings. Those identified were at high risk of bias related to patient selection and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. The evidence was indirect, as all studies evaluated Mini-Cog differently from the review question, where it was anticipated that studies would conduct Mini-Cog and independently but contemporaneously perform a reference standard assessment to diagnose dementia. The pattern of test accuracy varied across the three studies. Future research should evaluate Mini-Cog as a test in itself, rather than derived from other neuropsychological assessments. There is also a need for evaluation of the feasibility of the Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia to help adequately determine its role in the clinical pathway.
阿尔茨海默病痴呆症和其他类型痴呆症的诊断依赖于临床评估。在二级保健环境中,认知障碍的患病率很高,包括未被诊断出的痴呆症。简短的认知测试有助于确定需要进一步接受专业诊断评估的人群;然而,在临床实践中,对于使用何种最佳工具还没有共识。Mini-Cog 是一种包含三项回忆和时钟绘制测试的简短认知测试,用于二级保健环境。
本研究的主要目的是确定 Mini-Cog 在二级保健环境中诊断痴呆症的准确性。次要目标是研究纳入研究中测试准确性的异质性以及潜在的异质性来源。这些潜在的异质性来源将包括研究样本中痴呆症的基线患病率、用于确定阳性测试结果的阈值、痴呆症的类型(阿尔茨海默病痴呆症或所有原因的痴呆症)以及与研究质量相关的研究设计方面。
我们于 2012 年 9 月检索了以下来源,并于 2019 年 3 月 12 日更新:Cochrane 痴呆症组诊断测试准确性研究登记册、MEDLINE(OvidSP)、Embase(OvidSP)、BIOSIS 预览(Web of Knowledge)、科学引文索引(ISI Web of Knowledge)、PsycINFO(OvidSP)和 LILACS(BIREME)。我们没有排除 Mini-Cog 管理的语言或出版的语言,必要时使用翻译服务。
我们纳入了横断面研究,排除了病例对照设计,因为存在偏倚的风险。我们选择了那些将 Mini-Cog 作为诊断痴呆症的指标测试的研究,其中痴呆症的诊断是通过参考标准临床评估使用标准化的痴呆症诊断标准来确认的。我们仅纳入二级保健环境(包括住院和门诊医院参与者)中的研究。
我们筛选了电子数据库搜索生成的所有标题和摘要。两名综述作者独立检查全文以确定纳入标准,并提取数据。我们使用 QUADAS-2 工具确定质量评估(偏倚风险和适用性)。我们将数据提取到两乘两表中,以便为个别研究计算准确性指标,使用森林图以图形方式总结这些指标。
三项研究共纳入 2560 名参与者,符合纳入标准,分别为神经心理学门诊转诊、普通内科门诊就诊和记忆门诊转诊。由于研究作者选择性地使用了可用数据,只有 n = 1415(55.3%)的参与者被纳入分析,以评估 Mini-Cog 测试的准确性。在所有研究中,Mini-Cog 是从历史数据集回顾性得出的。没有研究包括急性综合医院的住院患者。痴呆症的患病率从 32.2%到 87.3%不等。个别研究中 Mini-Cog 的敏感性报告为 0.67(95%置信区间 0.63 至 0.71)、0.60(95%置信区间 0.48 至 0.72)和 0.87(95%置信区间 0.83 至 0.90)。Mini-Cog 对每个单独研究的特异性为 0.87(95%置信区间 0.81 至 0.92)、0.65(95%置信区间 0.57 至 0.73)和 1.00(95%置信区间 0.94 至 1.00)。由于与偏倚风险和异质性相关的担忧,我们没有进行荟萃分析。
本综述仅确定了少数使用 Mini-Cog 在二级保健环境中进行诊断测试准确性的研究。这些研究存在与患者选择相关的高度偏倚风险,以及与指标测试实施和适用性相关的高度关注。证据是间接的,因为所有研究都以不同的方式评估了 Mini-Cog,与审查问题不同,审查问题预计研究将进行 Mini-Cog 并独立但同时进行参考标准评估以诊断痴呆症。测试准确性的模式在三项研究中有所不同。未来的研究应该评估 Mini-Cog 作为一种测试本身,而不是从其他神经心理学评估中得出。还需要评估 Mini-Cog 检测痴呆症的可行性,以帮助确定其在临床途径中的作用。