Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37539344›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2023

Validation of the German Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment-H for hearing-impaired.

Christiane Völter, Hannah Fricke, Sarah Faour, Gero Lueg, Ziad S Nasreddine, Lisa Götze, Piers Dawes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of a non-auditory neurocognitive test battery in hearing-impaired according to age.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Christiane Völter *Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Catholic Hospital Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Hannah Fricke *Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Catholic Hospital Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Sarah FaourDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Catholic Hospital Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Gero LuegDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University Bochum, Herne, Germany.
Ziad S NasreddineMoCA Clinic and Institute, Greenfield Park, QC, Canada.
Lisa GötzeDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Catholic Hospital Bochum, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Piers DawesCentre for Hearing Research (CHEAR), School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hearing loss and dementia are highly prevalent in older age and often co-occur. Most neurocognitive screening tests are auditory-based, and performance can be affected by hearing loss. To address the need for a cognitive screening test suitable for people with hearing loss, a visual version of the Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment was developed and recently validated in English (MoCA-H), with good sensitivity and specificity for identifying cases of dementia. As the MoCA is known to perform differently across languages, revalidation of the German MoCA-H was necessary. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the German MoCA-H among those with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia and to determine an appropriate performance cut- off. Materials and methods: A total of 346 participants aged 60-97 years (M = 77.18, SD = 9.56) were included; 160 were cognitively healthy, 79 with MCI and 107 were living with dementia based on the GPCOG and a detailed medical questionnaire as well as a comprehensive examination by a neurologist in case of cognitive impairment. Performance cut-offs for normal cognition, MCI and dementia were estimated for the MoCA-H score and z-scores using the English MoCA-H cut-off, the balanced cut-off and the Youden's Index. Results: A mean score of 25.49 (SD = 3.01) points in the German MoCA-H was achieved in cognitively healthy participants, 20.08 (SD = 2.29) in the MCI and 15.80 (SD = 3.85) in the dementia group. The optimum cut-off for the detection of dementia was ≤21 points with a sensitivity of 96.3% and a specificity of 90%. In the MCI group, a cut-off range between 22 and 24 points is proposed to increase diagnostic accuracy to a sensitivity and specificity of 97.5 and 90%, respectively. Conclusion: The German MoCA-H seems to be a sensitive screening test for MCI and dementia and should replace commonly used auditory-based cognitive screening tests in older adults. The choice of a cut-off range might help to better reflect the difficulty in clinical reality in detecting MCI. However, screening test batteries cannot replace a comprehensive cognitive evaluation.

Indexed as

cognitive screeningdementiahearing lossmild cognitive impairmentMoCA-H

Identifiers

PMID37539344
PMCPMC10394634

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.