The Mini-Cog as a Screen for Dementia: Validation in a Population-Based Sample
dc.contributor.author | Borson, Soo | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Scanlan, James M. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Chen, Peijun | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ganguli, Mary | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-01T15:14:00Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-04-01T15:14:00Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2003-10 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Borson, Soo; Scanlan, James M.; Chen, Peijun; Ganguli, Mary (2003). "The Mini-Cog as a Screen for Dementia: Validation in a Population-Based Sample." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 51(10): 1451-1454. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/65703> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0002-8614 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1532-5415 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/65703 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14511167&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | To test the Mini-Cog, a brief cognitive screening test, in an epidemiological study of dementia in older Americans. Design : A population-based post hoc examination of the sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in an existing data set. Setting : The Monongahela Valley in Western Pennsylvania. Participants : A random sample of 1,119 older adults enrolled in the Monongahela Valley Independent Elders Survey (MoVIES). Measurements : The effectiveness of the Mini-Cog in detecting independently diagnosed dementia was compared with that of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a standardized neuropsychological battery. Results : The Mini-Cog, scored by an algorithm as “possibly impaired” or “probably normal,” and the MMSE, at a cutpoint of 25, had similar sensitivity (76% vs 79%) and specificity (89% vs 88%) for dementia, comparable with that achieved using a conventional neuropsychological battery (75% sensitivity, 90% specificity). Conclusion : When applied post hoc to an existing population, the Mini-Cog was as effective in detecting dementia as longer screening and assessment instruments. Its brevity is a distinct advantage when the goal is to improve identification of older adults in a population who may be cognitively impaired. Prior evidence of good performance in a multiethnic community-based sample further supports its validity in the ethnolinguistically diverse populations of the United States in which widely used cognitive screens often fail. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 74463 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3110 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Science Inc | en_US |
dc.rights | © 2003 by the American Geriatrics Society | en_US |
dc.subject.other | MMSE | en_US |
dc.subject.other | MoVIES | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Epidemiology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Brief Dementia Screens | en_US |
dc.title | The Mini-Cog as a Screen for Dementia: Validation in a Population-Based Sample | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Geriatrics | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; and | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington ; | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 14511167 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65703/1/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Froehlich TE, Robison JT, Inouye SK. Screening for dementia in the outpatient setting. The time and change test. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998 ; 46 : 1506 – 1511. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wind AW, Schellevis FG, Van Staveren G et al. Limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination in diagnosing dementia in general practice. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1997 ; 12 : 101 – 108. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Callahan CM, Hendrie HC, Tierney WM. Documentation and evaluation of cognitive impairment in elderly primary care patients. Ann Intern Med 1995 ; 122 : 422 – 429. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | O'Connor DW, Pollitt PA, Hyde JB et al. Do general practitioners miss dementia in elderly patients? BMJ 1988 ; 297 : 1107 – 1110. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Stoppe G, Sandholzer H, Staedt J et al. Diagnosis of dementia in primary care : Results of a representative survey in lower Saxony, Germany. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1994 ; 244 : 278 – 283. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Valcour VG, Masaki KH, Curb D et al. The detection of dementia in the primary care setting. Arch Intern Med 2000 ; 160 : 2963 – 2968. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Petersen RC, Stevens JC, Ganguli M et al. Practice parameter. Early detection of dementia : Mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2001 ; 56 : 1133 – 1142. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bush C, Kozak J, Elmslie T. Screening for cognitive impairment in the elderly. Can Fam Physician 1997 ; 43 : 1763 – 1768. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Brodaty H, Howarth GC, Mant A et al. General practice and dementia : A national survey of Australian GPs. Med J Aust 1994 ; 160 : 10 – 14. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tangalos EG, Smith GE, Ivnik RJ et al. The Mini-Mental State Examination in general medical practice. Clinical utility and acceptance. Mayo Clin Proc 1996 ; 71 : 829 – 837. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lorentz WJ, Scanlan JM, Borson S. Brief cognitive screening tests. Can J Psychiatry 2002 ; 47 : 723 – 733. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Borson S, Scanlan JM, Brush M et al. The Mini-Cog : A cognitive ‘vital signs’ measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000 ; 15 : 1021 – 1027. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Scanlan JM, Borson S. The Mini-Cog. Receiver operating characteristics with expert and naive raters. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001 ; 16 : 216 – 222. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Borson S, Scanlan JM. Mini-Cog : Improving primary care physicians' detection of milder cognitive syndromes. Neurobiol Aging 2002 ; 23 : S158. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ganguli M, Belle S, Ratcliff G et al. Sensitivity and specificity for dementia of population-based criteria for cognitive impairment : The MoVIES project. J Gerontol 1993 ; 48 : M152 – M161. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 16. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Ed., Revised. Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association, 1987. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein MF et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease : Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology 1984 ; 34 : 939 – 944. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Morris JC, Heyman A, Mohs RC et al. The consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer's disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 1989 ; 39 : 1159 – 1165. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL et al. A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatr 1982 ; 140 : 566 – 572. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Scanlan JM, Brush M, Quijano C et al. Comparing clock tests for dementia screening : Naive judgments vs. formal systems-what is optimal? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002 ; 17 : 14 – 21. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Royall DR, Mulroy AR, Chiodo LK et al. Clock drawing is sensitive to executive control. A comparison of six methods. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1999 ; 54B : P328 – P333. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Freidl W, Schmidt R, Stronegger WJ et al. Mini-Mental State Examination. Influence of sociodemographic, environmental and behavioral factors, and vascular risk factors. J Clin Epidemiol 1996 ; 49 : 73 – 78. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Brodaty H, Moore CM. The clock drawing test for dementia of the Alzheimer's type : A comparison of three scoring methods in a memory disorders clinic. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry 1997 ; 12 : 619 – 627. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Storey JE, Rowland JT, Basic D et al. A comparison of five clock scoring methods using ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001 ; 16 : 394 – 399. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E et al. Population-based care of depression : Effective disease management strategies to decrease prevalence. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1997 ; 19 : 169 – 178. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Almeida OP, Almeida SA. Short versions of the geriatric depression scale : A study of their validity for the diagnosis of a major depressive episode according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999 ; 14 : 858 – 865. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Stuss DT, Meiran N, Guzman DA et al. Do long tests yield a more accurate diagnosis of dementia than short tests? A comparison of 5 neuropsychological tests. Arch Neurol 1996 ; 53 : 1033 – 1039. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.