ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2024
On the Clinimetrics of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Cutoff Analysis in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment due to Alzheimer's Disease.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2024. 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.
- The Footprint ofCurrent Alzheimer research · 2025Pooled it
- Spatial navigation as a digital marker for clinically differentiating cognitive impairment severity.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- White matter microstructure differences in obstructive sleep apnea severity groups assessed by diffusion tensor metrics and biophysical modeling.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Deficits in reaching movements under visual interference as a novel diagnostic marker for mild cognitive impairment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Normative data of the Spanish version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in older individuals from Peru.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2025Article
- Mild cognitive impairment and neuropsychological examination.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the era of disease-modifying therapies, empowering the clinical neuropsychologist's toolkit for timely identification of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is crucial. Objective: Here we examine the clinimetric properties of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for the early diagnosis of MCI due to Alzheimer's disease (MCI-AD). Methods: Data from 48 patients with MCI-AD and 47 healthy controls were retrospectively analyzed. Raw MoCA scores were corrected according to the conventional Nasreddine's 1-point correction and demographic adjustments derived from three normative studies. Optimal cutoffs were determined while previously established cutoffs were diagnostically reevaluated. Results: The original Nasreddine's cutoff of 26 and normative cutoffs (non-parametric outer tolerance limit on the 5th percentile of demographically-adjusted score distributions) were overly imbalanced in terms of Sensitivity (Se) and Specificity (Sp). The optimal cutoff for Nasreddine's adjustment showed adequate clinimetric properties (≤23.50, Se = 0.75, Sp = 0.70). However, the optimal cutoff for Santangelo's adjustment (≤22.85, Se = 0.65, Sp = 0.87) proved to be the most effective for both screening and diagnostic purposes according to Larner's metrics. The results of post-probability analyses revealed that an individual testing positive using Santangelo's adjustment combined with a cutoff of 22.85 would have 84% post-test probability of receiving a diagnosis of MCI-AD (LR+ = 5.06). Conclusions: We found a common (mal)practice of bypassing the applicability of normative cutoffs in diagnosis-oriented clinical practice. In this study, we identified optimal cutoffs for MoCA to be allocated in secondary care settings for supporting MCI-AD diagnosis. Methodological and psychometric issues are discussed.
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.