Brief Cognitive Tests for Distinguishing Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia From Mild Cognitive Impairment or Normal Cognition in Older Adults With Suspected Cognitive Impairment.
Cognition
Cognitive impairment
Cohort studies
Dementia
Elderly
Longitudinal studies
Memory recall
Retrospective studies
Sensitivity
Specificity
Journal
Annals of internal medicine
ISSN: 1539-3704
Titre abrégé: Ann Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372351
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 05 2020
19 05 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
2
9
2020
entrez:
28
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for identifying clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. To summarize evidence on accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for CATD in older adults with suspected cognitive impairment. Electronic bibliographic databases (from inception to November 2019) and systematic review bibliographies. English-language, controlled observational studies in older adults that evaluated the accuracy of brief cognitive tests (standalone tests; memory, executive function, and language tests; and brief multidomain batteries) for distinguishing CATD from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or normal cognition as defined by established diagnostic criteria. Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; the other verified extraction accuracy. Fifty-seven studies met analysis criteria. Many brief, single cognitive tests were highly sensitive and specific for distinguishing CATD from normal cognition. These included standalone tests (clock-drawing test, median sensitivity 0.79 and specificity 0.88 [8 studies]; Mini-Mental State Examination, 0.88 and 0.94 [7 studies]; Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 0.94 and 0.94 [2 studies]; and Brief Alzheimer Screen, 0.92 and 0.97 [1 study]), memory tests (list delayed recall, 0.89 and 0.94 [5 studies]), and language tests (category fluency, 0.92 and 0.89 [9 studies]). Accuracy was lower in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition and distinguishing CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms. Studies were small. Few test metrics were evaluated by multiple studies. Few studies directly compared different tests, scores, cut points, or test combinations. Many brief, single cognitive tests accurately distinguish CATD from normal cognition in older adults but are less accurate in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition or CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for identifying clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain.
PURPOSE
To summarize evidence on accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for CATD in older adults with suspected cognitive impairment.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic bibliographic databases (from inception to November 2019) and systematic review bibliographies.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language, controlled observational studies in older adults that evaluated the accuracy of brief cognitive tests (standalone tests; memory, executive function, and language tests; and brief multidomain batteries) for distinguishing CATD from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or normal cognition as defined by established diagnostic criteria. Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; the other verified extraction accuracy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Fifty-seven studies met analysis criteria. Many brief, single cognitive tests were highly sensitive and specific for distinguishing CATD from normal cognition. These included standalone tests (clock-drawing test, median sensitivity 0.79 and specificity 0.88 [8 studies]; Mini-Mental State Examination, 0.88 and 0.94 [7 studies]; Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 0.94 and 0.94 [2 studies]; and Brief Alzheimer Screen, 0.92 and 0.97 [1 study]), memory tests (list delayed recall, 0.89 and 0.94 [5 studies]), and language tests (category fluency, 0.92 and 0.89 [9 studies]). Accuracy was lower in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition and distinguishing CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms.
LIMITATIONS
Studies were small. Few test metrics were evaluated by multiple studies. Few studies directly compared different tests, scores, cut points, or test combinations.
CONCLUSION
Many brief, single cognitive tests accurately distinguish CATD from normal cognition in older adults but are less accurate in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition or CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32340040
pii: 2765189
doi: 10.7326/M19-3889
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
678-687Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn