Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29851846›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2018

Comparison of the value of Mini-Cog and MMSE screening in the rapid identification of Chinese outpatients with mild cognitive impairment.

Xueyan Li, Jie Dai, Shasha Zhao, Wangen Liu, Haimei Li

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Xueyan LiDepartment of Neurology, Cangzhou City Central Hospital, Cangzhou, China.
Jie Dai
Shasha Zhao
Wangen Liu
Haimei Li
Cangzhou Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at high risk of dementia, but early identification and active intervention can reduce its morbidity and the incidence of dementia. There is currently no suitable neuropsychological assessment scale to effectively identify MCI in neurological outpatient departments in China. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is often used to screen for MCI in outpatient departments in China.To compare the value of Mini-Cog and MMSE in screening patients for MCI in a neurological outpatient department, and determine differences in the value of Mini-Cog for different ages and educational levels.This was a retrospective study of 229 patients with suspected MCI who visited the Cangzhou Central Hospital between March 2012 and April 2016. The MCI group included 119 patients diagnosed with MCI and 110 cases without MCI (non-MCI group). The MCI patients were subgrouped as 40 to 60 years of age, 61 to 80 years, and >80 years; and as without education, ≤6 years education, and >6 years education. All subjects were assessed using the Mini-Cog and MMSE.There were significant differences in Mini-Cog (P < .05) and MMSE (P < .05) between the MCI and non-MCI groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Youden index (85.71%, 79.41%, 0.8108, 0.8438, and 0.6550) of Mini-Cog were all higher than those of MMSE (64.76%, 71.57%, 0.7010, 0.6364, and 0.3370) in identifying MCI, but there was no significant difference in specificity (P > .05). Mini-Cog was better than MMSE (P < .05) for MCI patients with different ages and education levels.These results showed that the Mini-Cog was superior to MMSE in identifying MCI patients. Mini-Cog was less affected by age and education level than MMSE. The Mini-Cog assessment was short (3-4 minutes) and easily accepted by the patients. Mini-Cog could be more suitable for application in outpatient department in primary hospitals.

Indexed as

Mental Status and Dementia TestsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAsian PeopleChinaCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOutpatientsPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29851846
PMCPMC6392520
OpenAlexW2806702021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.