Search

Background: We aimed to examine the discriminant validity of a brief self-administered cognitive screening test, the Test Your Memory (TYM) and a brief neuropsychological test, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), supplemented with executive and language tests (Color Trail Test [CTT] and modified Boston Naming Test [mBNT], respectively), in detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in a one-stop memory clinic in Singapore.Methods: Ninety patients ≥50 years old with a diagnosis of no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment, and mild Alzheimer disease were recruited from memory clinic. They received the TYM, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), RBANS, CTT, mBNT, and a gold-standard formal neuropsychological test battery.Results: The TYM had a significantly larger area under the curve (AUC) than MMSE (0.96 vs 0.88, P = .03) and was equivalent to MoCA in detecting CI (0.96 vs 0.95, P = .80). At the optimal cutoff points, the TYM (<38) was significantly more sensitive than the MMSE (<24) and MoCA (<20; P < .001). The RBANS had an AUC equivalent to the RBANS supplemented with CTT and mBNT (0.92 vs 0.86, P = .22) in detecting CI. The RBANS supplemented with CTT and mBNT was more sensitive than RBANS alone in detecting CI (sensitivity: 0.98 vs 0.93, P = .016) among patients screened negative using TYM.Conclusion: The self-administered TYM is superior to MMSE and equivalent to MoCA in detecting CI and could be implemented routinely. The RBANS supplemented with CTT and mBNT is more sensitive in detecting CI than RBANS alone therefore could be used for diagnostic purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is no established minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) index and total scale scores. This study aimed to estimate the MCID for the RBANS index scores and total scale score.Method: Participants included 1,856 ethnic Chinese, older adults. Distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to estimate values for the MCID. Distribution-based estimates were calculated as the standard error of measurement (SEM) and .5 standard deviations (SD). For anchor-based estimates, we compared RBANS scores between the clinical dementia rating (CDR) scale no dementia and very mild dementia groups and between the clinical assessment of dementia (CAD) cognitively normal and mild cognitive impairment groups using regression models adjusting for demographic characteristics.Results: Estimates from the CDR anchor were 7.79, 8.63, 10.74, 9.74, 5.61, and 3.77 for the total scale score, language, immediate memory, delayed memory, visuospatial/constructional, and the attention index, respectively. Estimates from the distribution-based methods were similar to the estimates based on the CDR, except for the language and attention indexes. Estimates from the CAD anchor were larger.Conclusions: We estimated the MCID for the total scale score, language, immediate memory, delayed memory, visuospatial/constructional, and attention indexes of the RBANS as 8, 9, 10, 10, 6, and 4 points, respectively. These estimates are best suited to discriminate between patient groups, for example, in a clinical trial setting. Further research is needed using longitudinal data to assess their applicability to assess within patient differences. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives To determine the prognostic value of brief cognitive screening tests administered in the subacute stroke phase (initial 2 weeks) for the detection of significant cognitive impairment 3e6 months after stroke, the authors compared the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Methods Patients with ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack were assessed with both MoCA and MMSE within 14 days after index stroke, followed by a formal neuropsychological evaluation of seven cognitive domains 3e6 months later. Cognitive outcomes were dichotomised as either noemild (impairment in #2 cognitive domains) or moderateesevere (impairment in $3 cognitive domains) vascular cognitive impairment. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare discriminatory ability. Results 300 patients were recruited, of whom 239 received formal neuropsychological assessment 3e6 months after the stroke. 60 (25%) patients had moderateesevere VCI. The overall discriminant validity for detection of moderateesevere cognitive impairment was similar for MoCA (ROC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90) and MMSE (ROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.89)), p¼0.96). Both MoCA (21/22) and MMSE (25/26) had similar discriminant indices at their optimal cutoff points; sensitivity 0.88 versus 0.88; specificity 0.64 versus 0.67; 70% versus 72% correctly classified. Moreover, both tests had similar discriminant indices in detecting impaired cognitive domains. Conclusions Brief screening tests during acute admission in patients with mild stroke are predictive of significant vascular cognitive impairment 3e6 months after stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mixed dementia (MD), i.e., the coexistence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), is a common dementia subtype. Few studies have attempted to establish the cognitive profiles of mild–moderate MD and compare it to the profiles of AD using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. We aimed to establish the neuropsychological profile of mild–moderate MD in relation to mild–moderate AD. Methods: Patients with consensus diagnoses of MD and AD of mild–moderate severity (Clinical Dementia Rating score of 1–2) were recruited from a memory clinic. Cognitive performance was measured by a formal neuropsychological battery covering domains of attention, language, verbal and visual memory, visuoconstruction, visuomotor speed and executive function. Cognitive domain scores are z-scores calculated using the mean and SDs of the AD group. ANCOVAs with age and education as covariates were employed to examine differences in mean score difference of cognitive domains and subtests between patients with MD and AD. Results: 151 patients were recruited with the majority of AD (n=96, 63.6%) and a minority of MD (n=55, 36.4%). There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of patients with MD and AD. However, patients with MD were significantly more impaired than AD patients in global cognitive composite, attention and visuoconstruction (global cognitive composite: −0.32±0.98 vs 0±1, p =0.011; attention: −0.32±0.90 vs 0±1, p =0.013; visuoconstruction: −0.27±0.99 vs 0±1, p =0.024, respectively). Conclusion: The neuropsychological profile of patients with MD of mild–moderate severity is characterized by a poorer global performance, as well as attention and visuoconstruction than those with AD of mild–moderate severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]