Comparative Performance of Five Cognitive Screening Tests in a Large Sample of Seniors

Author:

Dreo Jurij,Jug Jan,Pavlovčič Tisa,Ogrin Ajda,Demšar Anita,Aljaž Barbara,Agatić Filip,Marusic Uros

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Recent introductions of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease have re-invigorated the cause of early dementia detection. Cognitive “paper and pencil” tests represent the bedrock of clinical assessment, because they are cheap, easy to perform, and do not require brain imaging or biological testing. Cognitive tests vary greatly in duration, complexity, sociolinguistic biases, probed cognitive domains, and their specificity and sensitivity of detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Consequently, an ecologically valid head-to-head comparison seems essential for evidence-based dementia screening. <b><i>Method:</i></b> We compared five tests: Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS), Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination (ACE-III), euro-coin handling test (Eurotest), and image identification test (Phototest) on a large sample of seniors (<i>N</i> = 456, 77.9 ± 8 years, 71% females). Their specificity and sensitivity were estimated in a novel way by contrasting each test’s outcome to the majority outcome across the remaining tests (comparative specificity and sensitivity calculation [CSSC]). This obviates the need for an a priori gold standard such as a clinically clear-cut sample of dementia/MCI/controls. We posit that the CSSC results in a more ecologically valid estimation of clinical performance while precluding biases resulting from different dementia/MCI diagnostic criteria and the proficiency in detecting these conditions. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There exists a stark trade-off between behavioral test specificity and sensitivity. The test with the highest specificity had the lowest sensitivity, and vice versa. The comparative specificities and sensitivities were, respectively: Phototest (97%, 47%), Eurotest (94%, 55%), ADAS (90%, 68%), ACE-III (72%, 77%), MoCA (55%, 95%). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Assuming a CI prevalence of 10%, the shortest (∼3 min) and the simplest instrument, the Phototest, was shown to have the best overall performance (accuracy 92%, PPV 66%, NPV 94%).

Publisher

S. Karger AG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3