Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32417771›Full record

ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2020

Brief Cognitive Tests Used in Primary Care Cannot Accurately Differentiate Mild Cognitive Impairment from Subjective Cognitive Decline.

Ferdinando Petrazzuoli, Susanna Vestberg, Patrik Midlöv, Hans Thulesius, Erik Stomrud, Sebastian Palmqvist

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Minimal clinically important difference in Alzheimer's disease: Rapid review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Tablet-based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) in a multisite study of early-onset Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ferdinando PetrazzuoliCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Clinical Research Center, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Susanna VestbergDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Patrik MidlövCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Clinical Research Center, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Hans ThulesiusCenter for Primary Health Care Research, Clinical Research Center, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Erik StomrudClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Sebastian PalmqvistClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Lund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is important because of the higher progression rate to dementia for MCI and when considering future disease-modifying drugs that will have treatment indications at the MCI stage.

objectiveWe examined if the two most widely-used cognitive tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and clock-drawing test (CDT), and a test of attention/executive function (AQT) accurately can differentiate MCI from SCD.

methodsWe included 466 consecutively recruited non-demented patients with cognitive complaints from the BioFINDER study who had been referred to memory clinics, predominantly from primary care. They were classified as MCI (n = 258) or SCD (n = 208) after thorough neuropsychological assessments. The accuracy of MMSE, CDT, and AQT for identifying MCI was examined both in training and validation samples and in the whole population.

resultsAs a single test, MMSE had the highest accuracy (sensitivity 73%, specificity 60%). The best combination of two tests was MMSE < 27 points or AQT > 91 seconds (sensitivity 56%, specificity 78%), but in logistic regression models, their AUC (0.76) was not significantly better than MMSE alone (AUC 0.75). CDT and AQT performed significantly worse (AUC 0.71; p < 0.001-0.05); otherwise no differences were seen between any combination of two or three tests.

conclusionNeither single nor combinations of tests could differentiate MCI from SCD with adequately high accuracy. There is a great need to further develop, validate, and implement accurate screening-tests for primary care to improve accurate identification of MCI among individuals that seek medical care due to cognitive symptoms.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsAgedCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHumansMaleSensitivity and SpecificityAQTclock drawing testcognitive screeningdiagnostic accuracymild cognitive impairmentMini-Mental State Examinationsubjective cognitive decline

Identifiers

PMID32417771
PMCPMC7369041
OpenAlexW3024245332

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.