The Prognostic Test Accuracy of the Short and Standard Forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Cerebrovascular Diseases Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1159/000540372
Tamar Abzhandadze, Olga I Berg, Anastasios Mavridis, Elias Lindvall, Terry Quinn, Katharina S Sunnerhagen, Erik Lundström
{"title":"The Prognostic Test Accuracy of the Short and Standard Forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.","authors":"Tamar Abzhandadze, Olga I Berg, Anastasios Mavridis, Elias Lindvall, Terry Quinn, Katharina S Sunnerhagen, Erik Lundström","doi":"10.1159/000540372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive impairment is a critical concern in stroke care, and international guidelines recommend early cognitive screening. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic accuracy of both the short and standard forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in predicting long-term cognitive recovery following a stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For this study, we used data from the Efficacy of Fluoxetine - a Randomized Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) study, which encompassed stroke patients from 35 Swedish centers over the period from 2014 to 2019. Cognitive assessments were initially conducted at 2-15 days post-stroke, with follow-up data gathered at 6 months. We used the MoCA for objective cognitive evaluation. For assessing subjective cognitive impairment, we used the memory and thinking domain of the Stroke Impact Scale. For psychometric evaluation of the short Swedish version of MoCA (s-MoCA-SWE), we used cross tables and binary logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 1,141 patients (62.2% men; median [interquartile range; IQR] age, 72.3 [13.2] years; median [IQR] stroke severity, 3.0 [3.0]). At baseline, the prevalence of cognitive impairment was 71.7% according to the s-MoCA-SWE (≤12) and 67.0% according to the MoCA (≤25). The s-MoCA-SWE demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.3% for correctly identifying patients with objective cognitive impairment and 81.5% for identifying those with subjective impairments at 6 months. Although the s-MoCA-SWE had higher sensitivity, the MoCA had a more balanced sensitivity and specificity in detecting both subjective and objective cognitive impairments. In both crude and multivariable models, the s-MoCA-SWE was more strongly associated than the MoCA with cognitive impairment at 6 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the short and standard versions of the MoCA appear to be effective in identifying individuals likely to experience persistent cognitive issues following a stroke. Considering the limited time available in an acute stroke unit, the short-form version may be more practical. Nevertheless, further prospective studies are required to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9683,"journal":{"name":"Cerebrovascular Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cerebrovascular Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540372","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cognitive impairment is a critical concern in stroke care, and international guidelines recommend early cognitive screening. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic accuracy of both the short and standard forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in predicting long-term cognitive recovery following a stroke.

Methods: For this study, we used data from the Efficacy of Fluoxetine - a Randomized Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) study, which encompassed stroke patients from 35 Swedish centers over the period from 2014 to 2019. Cognitive assessments were initially conducted at 2-15 days post-stroke, with follow-up data gathered at 6 months. We used the MoCA for objective cognitive evaluation. For assessing subjective cognitive impairment, we used the memory and thinking domain of the Stroke Impact Scale. For psychometric evaluation of the short Swedish version of MoCA (s-MoCA-SWE), we used cross tables and binary logistic regression.

Results: The study included 1,141 patients (62.2% men; median [interquartile range; IQR] age, 72.3 [13.2] years; median [IQR] stroke severity, 3.0 [3.0]). At baseline, the prevalence of cognitive impairment was 71.7% according to the s-MoCA-SWE (≤12) and 67.0% according to the MoCA (≤25). The s-MoCA-SWE demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.3% for correctly identifying patients with objective cognitive impairment and 81.5% for identifying those with subjective impairments at 6 months. Although the s-MoCA-SWE had higher sensitivity, the MoCA had a more balanced sensitivity and specificity in detecting both subjective and objective cognitive impairments. In both crude and multivariable models, the s-MoCA-SWE was more strongly associated than the MoCA with cognitive impairment at 6 months.

Conclusions: Both the short and standard versions of the MoCA appear to be effective in identifying individuals likely to experience persistent cognitive issues following a stroke. Considering the limited time available in an acute stroke unit, the short-form version may be more practical. Nevertheless, further prospective studies are required to validate these findings.

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
蒙特利尔认知评估简表和标准表的预后测试准确性。
引言 认知功能障碍是脑卒中治疗的关键问题,国际指南建议尽早进行认知功能筛查。本研究旨在确定蒙特利尔认知评估简表和标准表在预测脑卒中后长期认知恢复方面的预后准确性。方法 在本研究中,我们使用了 "氟西汀的疗效--脑卒中随机对照试验"(EFFECTS)研究的数据,该研究涵盖了 2014 年至 2019 年期间来自瑞典 35 个中心的脑卒中患者。认知评估最初在中风后 2-15 天进行,随访数据在 6 个月后收集。我们使用 MoCA 进行客观认知评估。在评估主观认知障碍时,我们使用了脑卒中影响量表的记忆和思维领域。在对瑞典语版 MoCA(s-MoCA-SWE)进行心理测量评估时,我们使用了交叉表和二元逻辑回归法。结果 研究共纳入 1141 名患者(62.2% 为男性;中位数[四分位数间距,IQR]年龄为 72.3 [13.2] 岁;中位数[IQR]卒中严重程度为 3.0 [3.0])。基线时,根据s-MoCA-SWE(≤12),认知障碍的发生率为71.7%,根据MoCA(≤25),认知障碍的发生率为67.0%。在 6 个月时,s-MoCA-SWE 正确识别客观认知障碍患者的灵敏度为 92.3%,识别主观障碍患者的灵敏度为 81.5%。虽然 s-MoCA-SWE 的灵敏度更高,但 MoCA 在检测主观和客观认知障碍方面的灵敏度和特异性更为均衡。在粗略模型和多变量模型中,s-MoCA-SWE 都比 MoCA 与 6 个月时的认知障碍有更强的相关性。结论 MoCA 的简短版和标准版似乎都能有效识别脑卒中后可能出现持续认知问题的患者。考虑到急性卒中单元的时间有限,短式版本可能更实用。然而,还需要进一步的前瞻性研究来验证这些发现。
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
Cerebrovascular Diseases
Cerebrovascular Diseases 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: A rapidly-growing field, stroke and cerebrovascular research is unique in that it involves a variety of specialties such as neurology, internal medicine, surgery, radiology, epidemiology, cardiology, hematology, psychology and rehabilitation. ''Cerebrovascular Diseases'' is an international forum which meets the growing need for sophisticated, up-to-date scientific information on clinical data, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic issues, dealing with all aspects of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases. It contains original contributions, reviews of selected topics and clinical investigative studies, recent meeting reports and work-in-progress as well as discussions on controversial issues. All aspects related to clinical advances are considered, while purely experimental work appears if directly relevant to clinical issues.
期刊最新文献
Association of the Brain White Matter Hyperintensity with the Cognitive Performance in Middle-Aged Population. Pre-Stroke Frailty Negatively Affects Leptomeningeal Collateral Flow in Proximal Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion. THE IMPACT OF VASCULAR RISK FACTORS ON CEREBRAL AMYLOID ANGIOPATHY: A COHORT STUDY IN HEREDITARY CAA AND A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW IN SPORADIC CAA. Utilising retinal phenotypes to predict cerebrovascular disease and detect related risk factors in multi-ethnic populations: a narrative review. Exploring Perceived Gender Disparities in Latin America's Vascular Neurology Workforce: Insights from a Survey-Based Study.
×
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:481959085
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