Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prueba de detección cognitiva breve (Mini‐Cog) para el diagnóstico de la demencia de la enfermedad de Alzheimer y otras demencias en ámbitos de atención primaria

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011415.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 22 febrero 2018see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Diagnostic
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Demencia y trastornos cognitivos

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Dallas P Seitz

    Correspondencia a: Department of Psychiatry, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

    [email protected]

  • Calvin CH Chan

    School of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

  • Hailey T Newton

    Department of Psychiatry, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

  • Sudeep S Gill

    Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

  • Nathan Herrmann

    Hurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada

  • Nadja Smailagic

    Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

  • Vasilis Nikolaou

    Research In Real Life, Cambridge, UK

  • Bruce A Fage

    Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Contributions of authors

DS wrote the draft of the protocol and contributed to revisions of the protocol. DS, CC, SG, NH, NS, VN and BF all contributed to revising the protocol and the final protocol.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada.

    • This project was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant KAL#114493

  • NIHR, UK.

    This review was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via a Cochrane Programme Grant to Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Declarations of interest

DS: no conflicts of interest to declare
CC: no conflicts of interest to declare
SG: no conflicts of interest to declare
NH: no conflicts of interest to declare
NS: no conflicts of interest to declare
VN: no conflicts of interest to declare
BF: no conflicts of interest to declare

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Anna Noel‐Storr for her assistance with electronic database searches and Sue Marcus for her assistance with the registration and co‐ordination of the editorial reviews of the protocol and final review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Jul 14

Mini‐Cog for the detection of dementia within a primary care setting

Review

Dallas P Seitz, Calvin CH Chan, Hailey T Newton, Sudeep S Gill, Nathan Herrmann, Nadja Smailagic, Vasilis Nikolaou, Bruce A Fage

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011415.pub3

2018 Feb 22

Mini‐Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting

Review

Dallas P Seitz, Calvin CH Chan, Hailey T Newton, Sudeep S Gill, Nathan Herrmann, Nadja Smailagic, Vasilis Nikolaou, Bruce A Fage

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011415.pub2

2014 Dec 08

Mini‐Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting

Protocol

Dallas P Seitz, Bruce A Fage, Calvin CH Chan, Sudeep S Gill, Nathan Herrmann, Nadja Smailagic, Vasilis Nikolaou

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011415

Differences between protocol and review

The meta‐analysis, subgroup analyses and investigation of heterogeneity initially described in the protocol were not undertaken in the final review due to the small number of studies and the methodological limitations that were observed in the included studies.

Keywords

MeSH

Study flow diagram
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Risk of bias and applicability concerns graph: review authors' judgements about each domain presented as percentages across included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias and applicability concerns graph: review authors' judgements about each domain presented as percentages across included studies

Risk of bias and applicability concerns summary: review authors' judgements about each domain for each included study
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias and applicability concerns summary: review authors' judgements about each domain for each included study

Forest plot of Analysis 1 Mini‐Cog
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of Analysis 1 Mini‐Cog

Mini‐Cog.
Figuras y tablas -
Test 1

Mini‐Cog.

Summary of findings Mini‐Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting

Mini‐Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting

Population

The study populations were sampled from participants identified in primary care settings.

Setting

The primary care setting was identified as representing a sample that would be presenting to primary care settings where the Mini‐Cog might be used as a screening test to identify individuals who may benefit from additional evaluation. Studies that identified individuals in primary care where they received both the index test and a reference standard were used.

Indext test

The Mini‐Cog performed in insolation or scored based on results on the clock drawing test or three‐word recall were included.

Reference Standard

Clinical diagnosis of dementia was made using recognized standard diagnostic criteria.

Studies

Cross‐sectional studies were included, case control studies were excluded

Study

Accuracy

(95% CI)

Number of

participants

Dementia

prevalence

Implications

Carnero‐Pardo 2013

Sensitivity: 1.00 (0.93 to 1.00)

Specificity: 0.40 (0.30 to 0.50)

142

34.5%

Participants were sampled including individuals who did have a pre‐existing history of dementia or cognitive impairment prior to assessment with the Mini‐Cog and reference standard but all participants had to have cognitive complaints suggestive of possible undiagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.

Fuchs 2012

Sensitivity: 1.00 (0.84 to 1.00)

Specificity: 0.85 (0.81 to 0.89)

423

5.0%

The study excluded individuals with dementia at baseline, and those included in the study received a 36 month follow up assessment. Thus participants in the sample who were diagnosed with dementia were in the early stages of the disease.

Holsinger 2012

Sensitivity: 0.76 (0.53 to 0.92)

Specificity: 0.73 (0.68 to 0.77)

383

5.5%

Study involved evaluation of individuals in primary care settings without a documented history of dementia recorded at baseline.

McCarten 2012

Sensitivity: 0.84 (0.81 to 0.87)

Specificity: 0.27 (0.16 to 0.41)

569

90.3%

Individuals with documented cognitive impairment were excluded from screening. Sampling involved screening of all participants in primary care and then offering further evaluation to individuals who either screened positive or negative on initial screening and who also agreed to have further evaluation.

CI: confidence interval

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings Mini‐Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies

Study ID

Country

Participants (N)

Setting

Mini‐Cog scoring

Reference standard for dementia diagnosis

Dementia prevalence

Notes

Carnero‐Pardo 2013

Spain

142

1 primary care location in Madrid and 3 primary care locations in Granada, only data from the Granada site was included

Standard scoring

DSM IV TR

34.5%

The clock drawing test was incorporated into the reference standard at the Madrid site, data are presented for the Granada sites only. Screening was administered by professionals (no further specification) except for the clock drawing test component in Madrid, which was performed by a neurologist.

Fuchs 2012

Germany

423

Participants were randomly selected from 138 study centres in 6 metropolitan areas in Germany although study reports information from 29 sites recruited from Dusseldorf region

Standard scoring

DSM IV

5.0%

Individuals with known dementia were excluded from the study. Study evaluated accuracy of the Mini‐Cog in detecting incident dementia at 36 months' follow‐up from enrolment. Screening tests were administered by a trained physician or psychologist.

Holsinger 2012

USA

383

Primary care locations affiliated with the Veterans Affairs near Durham, North Carolina

Standard scoring

DSM IV and

NINCDS‐ADRDA

5.5%

Excluded individuals with a known prior history of dementia based on diagnoses recorded in charts. The Mini‐Cog was administered by a research assistant.

McCarten 2012

USA

569

7 primary care settings affiliated with Veterans Affairs in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Standard scoring

DSM IV

90.3%

Participants were first screened for possible dementia by trained advanced practice registered nurses based on interview during routine visit with those who initially screened positive being offered additional evaluation with the index and reference standards. Some individuals who did not screen positive at the initial interview requested and received additional evaluation.

DSM IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition; DSM IV TR: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (text revision); NINCDS‐ADRDA: Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies
Table Tests. Data tables by test

Test

No. of studies

No. of participants

1 Mini‐Cog Show forest plot

4

1517

Figuras y tablas -
Table Tests. Data tables by test