4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of vascular cognitive impairment after acute stroke

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 299, 期 1-2, 页码 15-18

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.051

关键词

Vascular cognitive impairment no dementia; Stroke; Vascular cognitive impairment; Dementia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The majority of patient with post-stroke Vascular Cognitive Impairment (VCI) have Vascular Cognitive Impairment No Dementia (VCIND). The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) has been criticized as a poor screening test for VCIND due to insensitivity to visuospatial and executive function impairments. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was designed to be more sensitive to such deficits and may therefore be a superior screening instrument for VCIND. Methods: Stable patients within 14 days of their index stroke without significant physical disability, aphasia, dysarthria, active psychiatric illness or pre-existing dementia were eligible. Cognitive and neurological measures were administered after informed consent. Results: 100 patients were recruited. Of the 57 patients with unimpaired MMSE scores, 18(32%) patients had an impaired MoCA score. By comparison, only 2 out of the 41(4.9%) patients with unimpaired MoCA scores had impaired MMSE scores. Moreover, MMSE domain subtest scores could not differentiate between groups of differing screening test results, whilst MoCA domain subtest scores (Visuospatial/Executive Function, Attention and Recall) could. Conclusion: The MoCA is more sensitive than the MMSE in screening for cognitive impairment after acute stroke. Longitudinal studies are required to establish the prognostic value of MoCA and MMSE evaluation in the acute post-stroke period for cognitive impairment as defined by the standard method of formal neuropsychological evaluation 3-6 months after stroke. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据