ArticleBrain and behavior2022
Validation of a modified Chinese version of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination for detecting mild cognitive impairment.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of Montreal cognitive assessment diagnostic accuracy in amnestic mild cognitive impairment.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Multidomain prediction of education-stratified MoCA-defined mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older adults in urban China.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Mini-ACE: Validation Study Among Older People in Long-Term Care.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Utility of Chinese Versions of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Validation of a modified Chinese version of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination for detecting mild cognitive impairment.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
- Cognitive decline assessment in speakers of understudied languages.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI), brief cognitive screening tools are increasingly required for the advantage of time saving and no need for special equipment or trained raters. We aimed to develop a modified Chinese version of Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (C-MACE) and further evaluate its validation in detecting MCI.
methodsA total of 716 individuals aged from 50 to 90 years old were recruited, including 431 cognitively normal controls (NC) and 285 individuals with MCI. The effect size of Cramer's V was used to explore which items in the Chinese version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III-CV) best associated with MCI and to form the C-MACE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were carried out to explore the ability of C-MACE, ACE-III-CV, Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-BC), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in discriminating MCI from NC.
resultsFive items with greatest effect sizes of Cramer's V were selected from ACE-III-CV to form the C-MACE: Memory Immediate Recall, Memory Delayed Recall, Memory Recognition, Verbal Fluency Animal and Language Naming. With a total score of 38, the C-MACE had a satisfactory classification accuracy in detecting MCI (area under the ROC curve, AUC = 0.892), superior to MMSE (AUC = 0.782) and comparable to ACE-III-CV (AUC = 0.901) and MoCA-BC (AUC = 0.916). In the subgroup of Age > 70 years, Education ≤ 12 years, the C-MACE got a highest classification accuracy (AUC = 0.958) for detecting MCI.
conclusionIn the Chinese-speaking population, C-MACE derived from ACE-III-CV may identify MCI with a good classification accuracy, especially in aged people with low education.
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.