Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39009894›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024

Consequences of age and education correction of cognitive screening tests - A simulation study of the MoCA test in Italy.

Hans-Aloys Wischmann, Giancarlo Logroscino, Tobias Kurth, Marco Piccininni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. No matter how big it is, but how you use it: the importance of demographic adjustment in clinical neuropsychology.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Hans-Aloys WischmannInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Giancarlo LogroscinoCenter for Neurodegenerative Diseases and the Aging Brain, Department of Clinical Research in Neurology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", "Pia Fondazione Cardinale G. Panico", Tricase, Lecce, Italy.
Tobias KurthInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marco PiccininniInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. marco.piccininni@hpi.uni-potsdam.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1397-0060

Funding

Regione Puglia and CNR for Tecnopolo per la Medicina di Precisione CUPB84I18000540002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive screening tools are widely used in clinical practice to screen for age-related cognitive impairment and dementia. These tools' test scores are known to be influenced by age and education, leading to routine correction of raw scores for these factors. Despite these corrections being common practice, there is evidence suggesting that corrected scores may perform worse in terms of discrimination than raw scores.

objectiveTo address the ongoing debate in the field of dementia research, we assessed the impact of the corrections on discrimination, specificity, and sensitivity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test in Italy, both for the overall population and across age and education strata. METHODOLOGY: We created a realistic model of the resident population in Italy in terms of age, education, cognitive impairment and test scores, and performed a simulation study.

resultsWe confirmed that the discrimination performance was higher for raw scores than for corrected scores in discriminating patients with cognitive impairment from individuals without (areas under the curve of 0.947 and 0.923 respectively). With thresholds determined on the overall population, raw scores showed higher sensitivities for higher-risk age-education groups and higher specificities for lower-risk groups. Conversely, corrected scores showed uniform sensitivity and specificity across demographic strata, and thus better performance for certain age-education groups.

conclusionRaw and corrected scores show different performances due to the underlying causal relationships between the variables. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, the optimal choice between raw and corrected scores depends on the aims and preferences of practitioners and policymakers.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionEducational StatusMental Status and Dementia TestsAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsComputer SimulationDementiaFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsSensitivity and SpecificityAgeCognitive screeningCorrectionsDementiaEducationMild cognitive impairment

Identifiers

PMID39009894
PMCPMC11554764

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.