Culture-Fair Cognitive Screening Tools for Assessment of Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review

IF 4.7 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-02-16 DOI:10.3233/adr-230194
Tamara Chithiramohan, Smrithi Santhosh, Grace Threlfall, Louise Hull, E. Mukaetova-Ladinska, Hari Subramaniam, L. Beishon
{"title":"Culture-Fair Cognitive Screening Tools for Assessment of Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review","authors":"Tamara Chithiramohan, Smrithi Santhosh, Grace Threlfall, Louise Hull, E. Mukaetova-Ladinska, Hari Subramaniam, L. Beishon","doi":"10.3233/adr-230194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cognitive screening tools are important in the detection of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease; however, they may contain cultural biases. Objective: This review examines culture-fair cognitive screening tools and evaluates their screening accuracy, strengths, and limitations. Methods: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL were searched. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021288776). Included studies used a culture-fair tool to assess cognition in older adults from varying ethnicities. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: 28 studies were included assessing eleven different tools. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was as accurate as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (AUC 0.62-0.93), with a similar sensitivity (52–94%) and better specificity (70–98%), and the Multicultural Cognitive Examination (MCE) had improved screening accuracy (AUC 0.99) compared to RUDAS (AUC 0.92). The Visual Cognitive Assessment Test (VCAT) was equivalent to MMSE (AUC 0.84–0.91). The Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment tool (KICA) had AUC of 0.93–0.95; sensitivity of 90.6%, specificity 92.6%. Conclusions: The RUDAS, KICA and VCAT were superior to MMSE for screening dementia in ethnic minorities. Other tools also showed good screening accuracy. Further research should be done to validate tools in different populations.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"45 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-230194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cognitive screening tools are important in the detection of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease; however, they may contain cultural biases. Objective: This review examines culture-fair cognitive screening tools and evaluates their screening accuracy, strengths, and limitations. Methods: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL were searched. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021288776). Included studies used a culture-fair tool to assess cognition in older adults from varying ethnicities. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: 28 studies were included assessing eleven different tools. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was as accurate as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (AUC 0.62-0.93), with a similar sensitivity (52–94%) and better specificity (70–98%), and the Multicultural Cognitive Examination (MCE) had improved screening accuracy (AUC 0.99) compared to RUDAS (AUC 0.92). The Visual Cognitive Assessment Test (VCAT) was equivalent to MMSE (AUC 0.84–0.91). The Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment tool (KICA) had AUC of 0.93–0.95; sensitivity of 90.6%, specificity 92.6%. Conclusions: The RUDAS, KICA and VCAT were superior to MMSE for screening dementia in ethnic minorities. Other tools also showed good screening accuracy. Further research should be done to validate tools in different populations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估认知障碍的文化公平认知筛查工具:系统回顾
背景:认知筛查工具对于检测包括阿尔茨海默病在内的痴呆症非常重要,但这些工具可能存在文化偏见。目的: 本综述研究了文化公平认知筛查工具,并评估了这些工具的准确性和有效性:本综述研究了文化公平认知筛查工具,并对其筛查准确性、优势和局限性进行了评估。研究方法检索了 Medline、Embase、PsychINFO 和 CINAHL。研究方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD42021288776)上注册。纳入的研究使用了一种文化公平工具来评估不同种族老年人的认知能力。进行了叙述性综合。结果:共纳入 28 项研究,评估了 11 种不同的工具。罗兰德痴呆通用评估量表(RUDAS)的准确性与迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)相当(AUC 0.62-0.93),灵敏度(52-94%)和特异性(70-98%)相似,与 RUDAS(AUC 0.92)相比,多元文化认知检查(MCE)的筛查准确性更高(AUC 0.99)。视觉认知评估测试(VCAT)与 MMSE 相当(AUC 0.84-0.91)。金伯利土著认知评估工具(KICA)的AUC为0.93-0.95;灵敏度为90.6%,特异度为92.6%。结论在筛查少数民族痴呆症方面,RUDAS、KICA 和 VCAT 优于 MMSE。其他工具也显示出良好的筛查准确性。应进一步开展研究,在不同人群中对工具进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊介绍: ACS Applied Bio Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of biomaterials and biointerfaces including and beyond the traditional biosensing, biomedical and therapeutic applications. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrates knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important bio applications. The journal is specifically interested in work that addresses the relationship between structure and function and assesses the stability and degradation of materials under relevant environmental and biological conditions.
期刊最新文献
Smart Macrocycles: Cyclodextrin-Porphyrin Photosensitizers for Photodynamic Therapy in Human Bladder Cancer Cells. Design and Photophysical Engineering of Functional Organic Luminogens for Precision Cancer Theranostics. Dissolving Amyloid Fibrils with Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents: Citric Acid-Glycerol Achieves Superior Solubilization and Partial Protein Refolding. Chair-Shaped Indoline Donor Enabling Near-Infrared Imaging-Guided Type I Photodynamic Therapy. Pleurotus florida Waste Biomass as a Feedstock for Eco-Friendly Bioplastic Development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1