Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39512704›Full record

ArticleDementia and neurocognitive disorders2024

Differential Validity of K-MoCA-22 Compared to K-MoCA-30 and K-MMSE for Screening MCI and Dementia.

Haeyoon Kim, Kyung-Ho Yu, Yeonwook Kang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dementia and neurocognitive disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Haeyoon KimDepartment of Psychology, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1817-8654
Kyung-Ho YuDepartment of Neurology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8997-5626
Yeonwook KangDepartment of Psychology, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-9127

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the Telephone-Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA) has gained popularity as a remote cognitive screening tool. T-MoCA includes items from the original MoCA (MoCA-30), excluding those requiring visual stimuli, resulting in a maximum score of 22 points. This study aimed to assess whether the T-MoCA items (MoCA-22) demonstrate comparable discriminatory power to MoCA-30 and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods: Participants included 233 cognitively normal (CN) individuals, 175 with MCI, and 166 with dementia. All completed the Korean-MoCA-30 (K-MoCA-30) and Korean-MMSE (K-MMSE), with the Korean-MoCA-22 (K-MoCA-22) scores derived from the K-MoCA-30 responses. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted. Results: K-MoCA-22 showed a strong correlation with K-MoCA-30 and a moderate correlation with K-MMSE. Scores decreased progressively from CN to MCI and dementia, with significant differences between groups, consistent with K-MoCA-30 and K-MMSE. The study also explored modified K-MoCA-22 index scores across 5 cognitive domains. ROC curve analysis revealed that the area under the curve (AUC) for K-MoCA-22 was significantly smaller than that for K-MoCA-30 in distinguishing both MCI and dementia from CN. However, no significant difference in AUC was found between K-MoCA-22 and K-MMSE, indicating similar discriminatory power. Additionally, the discriminability of K-MoCA-22 varied by education level. Conclusions: These results indicate that K-MoCA-22, although slightly less effective than K-MoCA-30, still shows good to excellent discriminatory power and is comparable to K-MMSE in screening for MCI and dementia.

Indexed as

Differential ValidityMMSEMoCAMoCA-22

Identifiers

PMID39512704
PMCPMC11538852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.