ArticleDementia & neuropsychologia
Mini-Cog versus Codex (cognitive disorders examination) Is there a difference?
Article in Dementia & neuropsychologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The interaction effect of metals exposure and dietary habit on cognitive function in Chinese older adult cohort.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2024Article
- Cognitive testing in the COVID-19 era: can existing screeners be adapted for telephone use?Neurodegenerative disease management · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mini-Cog and Codex (cognitive disorders examination) are brief cognitive screening tests incorporating word-recall and clock drawing tests.
objectiveTo assess and compare the screening accuracy of Mini-Cog and Codex for diagnosis of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in patients attending a dedicated cognitive disorders clinic.
methodsTests were administered to a consecutive cohort of 162 patients, whose reference standard diagnoses based on clinical diagnostic criteria were dementia (44), MCI (26), and subjective memory complaint (92).
resultsBoth Mini-Cog and Codex had high sensitivity (>0.8) for dementia diagnosis, but Codex was more specific. For diagnosis of MCI, Mini-Cog had better sensitivity than Codex. Weighted comparisons of Mini-Cog and Codex showed only marginal net benefit for Mini-Cog for dementia diagnosis but larger net benefit for MCI diagnosis.
conclusionIn this pragmatic study both Mini-Cog and Codex were accurate brief screening tests for dementia but Mini-Cog was better for identification of MCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.