Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
Accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool for detecting mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Islam Nayaar, Hashem Rola, Gad Maryse, Brown Aime, Levis Brooke, Renoux Christel, Thombs Brett D, McInnes Matthew Df
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review evaluates the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PSYCInfo, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (1995-2021) for studies comparing the MoCA with validated diagnostic criteria to identify MCI in general practice. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently, in duplicate. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for MoCA cutoffs were estimated using bivariate meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies [2158 participants, 948(44%) with MCI] were included; 10 used Petersen criteria as the reference standard. Risk of bias of studies were high or unclear for all domains except reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity were 73.5%(95% confidence interval: 56.7-85.5) and 91.3%(84.6-95.3) at cutoff <23; 79.5%(67.1-88.0) and 83.7%(75.4-89.6) at cutoff <24; and 83.8%(75.6-89.6) and 70.8(62.1-78.3) at cutoff <25.
DISCUSSION: MoCA cutoffs <23 to <25 maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI. The risk of bias of included studies limits confidence in these findings.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PSYCInfo, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (1995-2021) for studies comparing the MoCA with validated diagnostic criteria to identify MCI in general practice. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently, in duplicate. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for MoCA cutoffs were estimated using bivariate meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies [2158 participants, 948(44%) with MCI] were included; 10 used Petersen criteria as the reference standard. Risk of bias of studies were high or unclear for all domains except reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity were 73.5%(95% confidence interval: 56.7-85.5) and 91.3%(84.6-95.3) at cutoff <23; 79.5%(67.1-88.0) and 83.7%(75.4-89.6) at cutoff <24; and 83.8%(75.6-89.6) and 70.8(62.1-78.3) at cutoff <25.
DISCUSSION: MoCA cutoffs <23 to <25 maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI. The risk of bias of included studies limits confidence in these findings.