3.8 Article

Accuracy of Korean-Mini-Mental Status Examination Based on Seoul Neuro-Psychological Screening Battery II Results

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 177-181

出版社

KOREAN ACAD FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.2016.37.3.177

关键词

Korean-Mini-Mental Status Examination; Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II; Sensitivity and Specificity; Negative Predictive Value; False Positive; False Negative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Korean-Mini-Mental Status Examination (K-MMSE) is a dementia-screening test that can be easily applied in both community and clinical settings. However, in 20% to 30% of cases, the K-MMSE produces a false negative response. This suggests that it is necessary to evaluate the accuracy of K-MMSE as a screening test for dementia, which can be achieved through comparison of K-MMSE and Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery (SNSB)-II results. Methods: The study included 713 subjects (male 534, female 179; mean age, 69.3 +/- 6.9 years). All subjects were assessed using K-MMSE and SNSB-II tests, the results of which were divided into normal and abnormal in 15 percentile standards. Results: The sensitivity of the K-MMSE was 48.7%, with a specificity of 89.9%. The incidence of false positive and negative results totaled 10.1% and 51.2%, respectively. In addition, the positive predictive value of the K-MMSE was 87.1%, while the negative predictive value was 55.6%. The false-negative group showed cognitive impairments in regions of memory and executive function. Subsequently, in the false-positive group, subjects demonstrated reduced performance in memory recall, time orientation, attention, and calculation of K-MMSE items. Conclusion: The results obtained in the study suggest that cognitive function might still be impaired even if an individual obtained a normal score on the K-MMSE. If the K-MMSE is combined with tests of memory or executive function, the accuracy of dementia diagnosis could be greatly improved.

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

3.8
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