4.5 Article

Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic for discrimination among different severities of Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TREATMENT
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 2133-2140

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S174293

关键词

mild cognitive impairment; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; Alzheimer's disease; cutoff study

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFC1306305]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To find out whether the Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-BC) and its subtests could be applied in discrimination among cognitively normal controls (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild and moderate Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and furthermore, to determine the optimal cutoffs most sensitive to distinguish between them. Design: A cross-sectional validation study. Setting: Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China. Participants: There was a total of 1,969 participants: individuals with MCI (n=663), mild (n=345), moderate (n=441) AD, and cognitively NC (n=520) were recruited from the Memory Clinic, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China. Measurements: Baseline MoCA-BC scores were collected from firsthand data. Two subtests were calculated from MoCA-BC: the Memory Index Score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-MIS) and the Non-memory Index Score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-NM). Results: MoCA-BC was an effective cognitive tool to discriminate among NC, MCI, mild and moderate AD in the Chinese elderly across all education groups, implying that it was efficient not only for detecting MCI, but for different severities of AD as well. For MCI screening, the total score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-T) and MoCA-BC-MIS had similar high sensitivity and specificity. For discrimination among MCI, mild and moderate AD, the MoCA-BC-T and MoCA-BC-NM had similar performance. Conclusion: MoCA-BC is an effective cognitive test to distinguish between NC, MCI, mild and moderate AD among the Chinese elderly with various levels of education.

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