Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34260060›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia within a secondary care setting.

Calvin Ch Chan, Bruce A Fage, Jennifer K Burton, Nadja Smailagic, Sudeep S Gill, Nathan Herrmann, Vasilis Nikolaou, Terry J Quinn, Anna H Noel-Storr, Dallas P Seitz

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Calvin Ch ChanSchool of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Bruce A FageDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jennifer K BurtonAcademic Geriatric Medicine, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Nadja SmailagicInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.
Sudeep S GillDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Nathan HerrmannHurvitz Brain Sciences Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Vasilis NikolaouResearch In Real Life , Cambridge , UK.
Terry J QuinnInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Anna H Noel-StorrRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK.
Dallas P SeitzDepartment of Psychiatry, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Queen's University · CAUniversity of Glasgow · GBSunnybrook Research InstituteUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Pathogenesis and therapeutic targeting of immune disordersT32AI118697 · NIAID · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HILDEMAN, DAVID A · 2016 to 2020
$683k
NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI118697
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias relies on clinical assessment. There is a high prevalence of cognitive disorders, including undiagnosed dementia in secondary care settings. Short cognitive tests can be helpful in identifying those who require further specialist diagnostic assessment; however, there is a lack of consensus around the optimal tools to use in clinical practice. The Mini-Cog is a short cognitive test comprising three-item recall and a clock-drawing test that is used in secondary care settings.

objectivesThe primary objective was to determine the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in a secondary care setting. The secondary objectives were to investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies and potential sources of heterogeneity. These potential sources of heterogeneity will include the baseline prevalence of dementia in study samples, thresholds used to determine positive test results, the type of dementia (Alzheimer's disease dementia or all causes of dementia), and aspects of study design related to study quality. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following sources in September 2012, with an update to 12 March 2019: Cochrane Dementia Group Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge), Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We made no exclusions with regard to language of Mini-Cog administration or language of publication, using translation services where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional studies and excluded case-control designs, due to the risk of bias. We selected those studies that included the Mini-Cog as an index test to diagnose dementia where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with reference standard clinical assessment using standardised dementia diagnostic criteria. We only included studies in secondary care settings (including inpatient and outpatient hospital participants). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles and abstracts generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted data into two-by-two tables to allow calculation of accuracy metrics for individual studies, reporting the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals of these measures, summarising them graphically using forest plots. MAIN

resultsThree studies with a total of 2560 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, set in neuropsychology outpatient referrals, outpatients attending a general medicine clinic, and referrals to a memory clinic. Only n = 1415 (55.3%) of participants were included in the analysis to inform evaluation of Mini-Cog test accuracy, due to the selective use of available data by study authors. There were concerns related to high risk of bias with respect to patient selection, and unclear risk of bias and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. In all studies, the Mini-Cog was retrospectively derived from historic data sets. No studies included acute general hospital inpatients. The prevalence of dementia ranged from 32.2% to 87.3%. The sensitivities of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.71), 0.60 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.72), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.90). The specificity of the Mini-Cog for each individual study was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92), 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73), and 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). We did not perform meta-analysis due to concerns related to risk of bias and heterogeneity. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review identified only a limited number of diagnostic test accuracy studies using Mini-Cog in secondary care settings. Those identified were at high risk of bias related to patient selection and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. The evidence was indirect, as all studies evaluated Mini-Cog differently from the review question, where it was anticipated that studies would conduct Mini-Cog and independently but contemporaneously perform a reference standard assessment to diagnose dementia. The pattern of test accuracy varied across the three studies. Future research should evaluate Mini-Cog as a test in itself, rather than derived from other neuropsychological assessments. There is also a need for evaluation of the feasibility of the Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia to help adequately determine its role in the clinical pathway.

Indexed as

Secondary Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseBiasCognition DisordersCross-Sectional StudiesDementiaDiagnosis, DifferentialDisease ProgressionHumansMental Status and Dementia TestsPatient SelectionPrevalenceSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID34260060
PMCPMC8278979
OpenAlexW4238908607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.