Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34616484›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021

Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Seeking a Single Cutoff Score May Not Be Optimal.

Chongming Yang, Ling Wang, Hui Hu, Xinxiu Dong, Yuncui Wang, Fen Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Chongming Yang *Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3941-0811
Ling Wang *Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7548-3305
Hui HuHubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6334-7904
Xinxiu DongHubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0338-7039
Yuncui WangHubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-2220
Fen YangHubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1188-4967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCutoff scores of the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) for screening mild cognitive impairment in older adults differ across the world and within the Chinese culture. It is argued that to seek a cutoff score is essential to classify test participants. It was unknown how taking a classifying approach might reveal the cutoff score for identifying mildly cognitively impaired older adults.

methodsParticipants, selected from 13 communities in Wuhan, China, were tested with the Chinese version of MoCA and rated with the Activities of Daily Living and the Clinical Dementia Rating scales. Mixture modeling was applied to the data with certain covariates and MoCA sum scores as the outcome of the latent class. Models with different numbers of classes were compared in terms of information criteria, likelihood ratio test, entropy, and interpretability.

resultsA 3-class model (normal, mildly impaired, and severely impaired) was found to fit the data best. The normal class averaged a MoCA score of 24, while the severely impaired class averaged a score below 18. For those cases with MoCA scores above 18 and below 24, it is not certain if they are in the normal or the severely impaired classes.

conclusionLatent variable classification modeling provides another option to identify MCI in older adults. Some categorically different cases of MCI cannot be captured with any single MoCA sum score. A range of 18-24 MoCA scores might serve as a better screening criterion of MCI. Older adults who scored within this gray zone should be monitored for potential interventions.

Identifiers

PMID34616484
PMCPMC8487840

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.