Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31917792›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The validation of the Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Ru Tian, Yidan Guo, Pengpeng Ye, Chunxia Zhang, Yang Luo

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Usefulness of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Seeking a Single Cutoff Score May Not Be Optimal.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ru TianDivision of Nephrology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Bejing, China.
Yidan GuoDivision of Nephrology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Bejing, China.
Pengpeng YeDivision of Injury Prevention and Mental Health National Center for Chronic and Non-communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Chunxia ZhangDivision of Nephrology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Bejing, China.
Yang LuoDivision of Nephrology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Bejing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1458-5519
Capital Medical University · CNNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCognitive impairment is common among hemodialysis patient, but still lack adequate screening in clinical settings. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is reportedly to be a sensitive screening tool for cognitive impairment, but its clinical value in patients undergoing hemodialysis is not well established. We aimed to validate the utility of the Beijing version of the MoCA (MoCA-BJ) for detecting cognitive impairment in comparison to a detailed neuropsychological battery as the gold standard.

methodsWe assessed 613 patients undergoing hemodialysis using the MoCA-BJ, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Cognitive dysfunction was defined by the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). Spearman's correlation and linear regression were used to estimate the performance of the MoCA-BJ and MMSE in predicting cognitive impairment. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the utility of various cutoffs of the MoCA-BJ and MMSE for predicting cognitive impairment.

resultsCognitive impairment was diagnosed in 80.91% (496/613), 75.69% (464/613), and 61.34% (376 /613) of the patients using the DSM-V, MoCA-BJ, and MMSE, respectively. Spearman's rank correlation analysis indicated that the MoCA-BJ was significantly correlated with the neuropsychological battery (rs = 0.639, p<0.001), whereas the MMSE had a weaker correlation with the battery. The area under the ROC curve for cognitive impairment diagnosis using the MoCA-BJ was 0.891 (95% confidence interval: 0.859-0.924) while using the MMSE was 0.823 (95% confidence interval: 0.786-0.860). The optimal MoCA-BJ cutoff score in discriminating patients with and without cognitive impairment was 24 points with a sensitivity of 0.877 and specificity of 0.752.

conclusionThe MoCA-BJ offers good sensitivity and specificity levels in detecting cognitive impairment in hemodialysis patients. These findings support the utility of the MoCA-BJ as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overChinaCognitive DysfunctionCultural CharacteristicsFemaleHumansKidney DiseasesMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsMiddle AgedRenal DialysisSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31917792
PMCPMC6952078
OpenAlexW2999597890

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.