ArticleOccupational therapy international2022
Comparison of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Korean Version for Predicting Mild Cognitive Assessment in 65-Year and Over Individuals.
Article in Occupational therapy international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of the visual cognitive assessment test for mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia diagnosis: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Korean Medicine for Aging Cohort (KoMAC) study-a prospective multicentre cohort in urban and rural Korea: cohort profile.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Virtual reality-based cognitive assessment tools for mild cognitive impairment screening: comparison with traditional paper-and-pencil-based cognitive assessment tools.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Profile for Brain Disease Research Infrastructure for Data Gathering and Exploration (BRIDGE) Platform.Aging and disease · 2024Article
- Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on cognition in MCI with Alzheimer's disease risk factors using Bayesian analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Value of Subjective Olfactometry as a Predictive Biomarker of Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Safety and feasibility of optimized transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: a multicenter study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Association between elevated glycosylated hemoglobin and cognitive impairment in older Korean adults: 2009-2010 Ansan cohort of the Korean genome and epidemiology study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of the two Korean versions of the MoCA for individuals aged ≥65 years. Methods: A total of 185 participants aged ≥65 years were included in this cross-sectional study. This study investigated the reliability of the two Korean versions of the MoCA (the MoCA-K and MoCA-K2) by having each participant complete both assessments twice and comparing them to their Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE-K) scores. The participants either completed the tests in order A (MoCA-K2 before MoCA-K) then B (MoCA-K before MoCA-K2) or vice versa. The tests were then completed in the opposite order. This study conducted all experiments at 3-day intervals. Results: Of the 185 total participants analyzed, 95 indicated cognitive impairment, while 90 had normal in MoCA-K scores; 50 demonstrated cognitive impairment, while 135 had normal in MMSE-K scores; and 101 and 84 participants showed cognitive impairment and normal in MoCA-K2 scores, respectively. Cronbach's Conclusions: These results suggest that both the MoCA-K and MoCA-K2 are suitable and reliable evaluation tools for MCI screening; however, the MoCA-K had better overall sensitivity and specificity.
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.