Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS). CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 27;7(7):CD010783. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010783.pub3.
Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings.
To determine the accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination for the early detection of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data.
We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow-up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer's dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.
We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve.
In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand-alone single-administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to dementia.
痴呆症是一种进行性的全球认知障碍综合征。2010 年,全球估计有超过 3500 万人患有痴呆症。一些轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者会发展为痴呆症,但其他患者则保持稳定或完全恢复功能。人们对寻找 MCI 患者中痴呆症的良好预测指标非常感兴趣。简易精神状态检查(MMSE)是最著名和最常用的短筛检工具,用于在临床、研究和社区环境中提供整体认知障碍的衡量。
确定简易精神状态检查在识别轻度认知障碍患者中痴呆症的早期检测中的准确性。
我们在 ALOIS(Cochrane 痴呆症和认知改善专门登记册,包括诊断和干预研究(从成立到 2014 年 5 月);MEDLINE(OvidSP)(1946 年至 2014 年 5 月);EMBASE(OvidSP)(1980 年至 2014 年 5 月);BIOSIS(Web of Science)(从成立到 2014 年 5 月);Web of Science 核心合集,包括会议论文引文索引(ISI Web of Science)(从成立到 2014 年 5 月);PsycINFO(OvidSP)(从成立到 2014 年 5 月),以及 LILACS(BIREME)(1982 年至 2014 年 5 月)。我们还最近在 2014 年 5 月从以下专门来源搜索了诊断准确性研究和综述:MEDION(马斯特里赫特大学和鲁汶大学,www.mediondatabase.nl);DARE(效果摘要数据库,通过 Cochrane 图书馆);HTA 数据库(通过 Cochrane 图书馆的健康技术评估数据库);以及 ARIF(英国伯明翰大学,www.arif.bham.ac.uk)。我们没有对电子检索施加语言或日期限制,也没有使用方法学过滤器来限制整个检索,以最大限度地提高敏感性。我们还检查了相关研究和综述的参考文献,在 Scopus 和科学引文索引中跟踪了引文,在 PubMed 中使用已知相关研究的搜索来跟踪相关文章,并联系了正在进行 MMSE 用于痴呆症诊断的研究小组,试图找到可能相关但未发表的数据。
我们考虑了纵向研究,其中在基线时对 MCI 参与者进行了 MMSE 检查,并且通过随时间进行随访获得了参考标准。我们包括了根据 Petersen 和修订的 Petersen 标准、Matthews 标准或临床痴呆评定量表=0.5 招募并临床分类为 MCI 的参与者。我们使用了一般痴呆症、阿尔茨海默病痴呆症、路易体痴呆症、血管性痴呆症和额颞叶痴呆症的可接受和常用的参考标准。
我们筛选了所有电子数据库搜索生成的标题。两名综述作者独立评估了所有潜在相关研究的摘要。我们评估了确定的全文论文的资格,并创建了用于一般痴呆症和其他痴呆症的 2x2 表。两名作者使用 QUADAS-2 工具独立进行了质量评估。由于高度异质性和数据稀缺,我们从我们拟合的模型中得出了在固定特异性值下的敏感性估计值,以产生汇总接收者操作特征曲线。
在本综述中,我们纳入了 11 项具有异质性的研究,共有 1569 名 MCI 患者随访以转换为痴呆症。四项研究评估了基线 MMSE 分数在从 MCI 转换为所有原因痴呆症中的作用,八项研究评估了该测试在从 MCI 转换为阿尔茨海默病痴呆症中的作用。只有一项研究提供了关于 MMSE 和从 MCI 转换为血管性痴呆症的信息。对于从 MCI 到痴呆症的总体转换,基线 MMSE 分数的准确性范围从敏感性 23%到 76%和特异性 40%到 94%。在与从 MCI 到阿尔茨海默病痴呆症的转换方面,基线 MMSE 分数的准确性范围从敏感性 27%到 89%和特异性 32%到 90%。只有一项研究提供了关于从 MCI 到血管性痴呆症的信息,其敏感性为 36%,特异性为 80%,血管性痴呆症的发病率为 6.2%。尽管我们计划探索纳入研究中的异质性的可能来源,但由于纳入分析的研究数量稀少,因此没有进行。
我们的综述没有发现证据支持 MMSE 作为一种单独的单次给药测试在识别可能发展为痴呆症的 MCI 患者中的重要作用。临床医生可能更愿意要求进行额外和广泛的测试,以确保这些患者的治疗。未来更新中一个重要的评估方面是,从 MCI 阶段到痴呆症的转换是否可以通过 MMSE 随时间的变化而不是单次测量更好地预测。评估一组测试,而不是孤立的测试,是否可以更成功地预测从 MCI 到痴呆症的转换也是很重要的。