The validity of informant report for grading the severity of Alzheimer's dementia

Informant report of practical judgment ability in a clinical sample of older adults with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia

Despite the importance of capturing problems with judgment and decision-making during neuropsychological evaluations of older adults, there are a limited number of validated measures and no informant rating scales. We developed an informant measure that captures compromised judgment related to safety, medical, financial, and social-ethical issues After item refinement and piloting in a memory disorders clinic, we utilized the Test of Practical Judgment-Informant (TOP-J-Informant) at two clinics in the Midwestern U.S., including 189 patient/informant dyads (mean age = 79.0, median years of education = 13, % female = 67.7) with various preclinical and clinical dementia conditions. We found psychometric support, including evidence for convergent, divergent, and criterion-related validity, and internal consistency. Importantly, we were able to discriminate between diagnostic groups in the expected direction. The TOP-J-Informant is brief (<5 minutes), easy to administer, and can reveal areas of concern related to poor judgment when administered in the context of a neuropsychological evaluation or clinic visit.

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND

The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: 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). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared the 11-item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all-cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all-cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver-operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full-text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta-analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta-analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14-30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17-26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta-analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient-relevant outcomes.

Screening for mild cognitive impairment in elderly ambulatory patients with cognitive complaints

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Identification of patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is strongly recommended because of their increased risk of dementia. Two brief global cognitive instruments, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), were examined as useful screening methods for MCI.

METHODS

The sensitivity and specificity of MMSE and CDT, scored using the Sunderland and Wolf-Klein methods, were evaluated in 113 elderly individuals with three different MCI subtypes: amnestic, multiple domain impairments, and single non-memory domain. Diagnoses were made on the basis of extensive clinical and neuropsychometric assessment.

RESULTS

Used alone, MMSE and CDT at standard cut-offs were highly specific (about 0.80) but rather insensitive (less than 0.50) to all MCI subtypes. By contrast, when used in combination, an abnormal result on either MMSE or CDT scored by the Sunderland method had a specificity of 0.69 [0.57-0.81] and a sensitivity of 0.75 [0.64-0.87] for multiple domain impairments MCI. Results were similar for MMSE in combination with CDT scored by the Wolf-Klein method (specificity 0.71 [0.59-0.83]; sensitivity 0.68 [0.56-0.80]).

CONCLUSIONS

MMSE and CDT alone are not valid screening methods for MCI detection. In combination, they reach fair sensitivity and specificity for the multiple domain impairment MCI subtype. However, some theoretical concerns relating to this subtype, together with the uncertainty that still lingers about its prognostic value, caution against routine use of MMSE and CDT as MCI screening instruments.