Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28697562›Full record

ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2017

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Normative Data from a Large Swedish Population-Based Cohort.

Emma Borland, Katarina Nägga, Peter M Nilsson, Lennart Minthon, Erik D Nilsson, Sebastian Palmqvist

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 207 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma BorlandDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Malmö, Lund University, Sweden.
Katarina NäggaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Malmö, Lund University, Sweden.
Peter M NilssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Research Unit, Malmö, Lund University, Sweden.
Lennart MinthonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Malmö, Lund University, Sweden.
Erik D NilssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Malmö, Lund University, Sweden.
Sebastian PalmqvistDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Malmö, Lund University, Sweden.
Lund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has a high sensitivity for detecting cognitive dysfunction. Swedish normative data does not exist and international norms are often derived from populations where cognitive impairment has not been screened for and not been thoroughly assessed to exclude subjects with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

objectiveTo establish norms for MoCA and develop a regression-based norm calculator based on a large, well-examined cohort.

methodsMoCA was administered on 860 randomly selected elderly people from a population-based cohort from the EPIC study. Cognitive dysfunction was screened for and further assessed at a memory clinic. After excluding cognitively impaired participants, normative data was derived from 758 people, aged 65-85.

resultsMoCA cut-offs (-1 to -2 standard deviations) for cognitive impairment ranged from <25 to <21 for the lowest educated and <26 to <24 for the highest educated, depending on age group. Significant predictors for MoCA score were age, sex and level of education.

conclusionWe present detailed normative MoCA data and cut-offs according to the DSM-5 criteria for cognitive impairment based on a large population-based cohort of elderly individuals, screened and thoroughly investigated to rule out cognitive impairment. Level of education, sex, and age should be taken in account when evaluating MoCA score, which is facilitated by our online regression-based calculator that provide percentile and z-score for a subject's MoCA score.

Indexed as

Psychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCognitionCognitive DysfunctionCohort StudiesCommunity Health PlanningFemaleHumansMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsRandom AllocationCognitively healthy elderlyexcluding cognitively impairedMontreal Cognitive Assessmentnormativepopulation-basedrepresentativeSwedish

Identifiers

PMID28697562
PMCPMC5545909
OpenAlexW2730566961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.