Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31093543›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2017

The comparative diagnostic accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the General Practitioner assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) for identifying dementia in primary care: a systematic review protocol.

Harriet A Hunt, Sanne Van Kampen, Yemisi Takwoingi, David J Llewellyn, Mark Pearson, Christopher J Hyde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Integrating plasma p-tau217 and digital cognitive assessments for early detection in Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Harriet A Hunt1National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, Devon EX1 1TE UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1254-0568
Sanne Van Kampen2National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, ITTC building, Tamar Science Park, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA UK.
Yemisi Takwoingi3Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK.
David J Llewellyn4University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, Devon EX1 1TE UK.
Mark Pearson1National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, Devon EX1 1TE UK.
Christopher J Hyde5Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, Devon EX1 1TE UK.
University of Exeter · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproved dementia identification is a global health priority, and general practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of contact for people with concerns about their cognition. However, GPs often express uncertainty in using assessment tools and the evidence based on which tests are most accurate in identifying dementia is unclear. In particular, there is little certainty around how the accuracy of available brief cognitive assessments compares within a clinical family practice setting.Grounded in existing brief cognitive assessment evidence, we will compare the diagnostic test accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) to the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) against the best available reference standard when used within a family practice setting.

methodsWe will employ robust systematic review methods to assess studies of diagnostic accuracy where both the MMSE and GPCOG have been evaluated as direct comparisons, i.e. within the same study population. This approach will enable us to minimise between-study heterogeneity, to eliminate the risk of bias due to confounding and increase the opportunity to make clinically useful and useable comparisons of diagnostic accuracy across both the MMSE and GPCOG. This systematic review will be conducted using a pragmatic search strategy, refining searches that build upon studies identified as part of our overview of systematic reviews of the diagnostic accuracy of brief cognitive assessments for identifying dementia in primary care. DISCUSSION: Through this systematic review, we aim to improve existing evidence on how the diagnostic accuracy of MMSE and GPCOG compares when used to identify dementia within the family practice setting. We also aim to make clinical practice recommendations based upon the variations in diagnostic accuracy identified between the MMSE and GPCOG.

Indexed as

Brief cognitive assessmentDementiaDiagnostic accuracyPrimary careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31093543
PMCPMC6460787
OpenAlexW2620894115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.