Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40740722›Full record

ArticleKidney medicine2025

The Diagnostic Performance of Screening Instruments for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia in Chronic Kidney Disease and Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Kevin Wang, Andrea Razcόn Echeagaray, Sandra M Campbell, Clara Bohm, Karthik Tennankore, Stephanie Thompson, Aminu K Bello, Neesh Pannu, Lavanya Bathini, Mark McIsaac and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors.

Kevin WangDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Andrea Razcόn EcheagarayDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sandra M CampbellHealth Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Clara BohmDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Karthik TennankoreDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Stephanie ThompsonDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Aminu K BelloDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Neesh PannuDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Lavanya BathiniDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Mark McIsaacDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Scott KlarenbachDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
David CollisterDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale & Objective: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia disproportionately affect people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney failure. Screening instruments can accurately identify cognitive impairment in the general population, but their performance in the setting of kidney disease is unclear. We aimed to summarize the performance of screening instruments for cognitive impairment in adults with CKD or kidney failure. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Study Populations: Adults with CKD or kidney failure (dialysis or kidney transplantation). Selection Criteria for Studies: Studies published in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO through October 2022, evaluating the diagnostic performance of cognitive screening instruments compared to a neuropsychological battery gold standard. Data Extraction: Study characteristics including population, screening instrument, gold standard, operating characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, odds ratio, and optimal cutoffs were extracted by 2 investigators. Conflicts were resolved through discussion with another reviewer. Analytical Approach: Random-effects models estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUality Assessment instrument for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Results: We included 10 studies involving >1,800 participants with CKD or kidney failure. The most frequently evaluated screening instruments were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination. For MCI/dementia, the MoCA had the best diagnostic performance using a cutoff of 24, with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.35-0.85), respectively. Without any specific cutoff, the Mini-Mental Status Examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.28-0.69) and pooled specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99). Limitations: Small number of studies, absence of kidney transplantation and hemodiafiltration populations, selective reporting of operating characteristics for optimal cutoffs, and high degree of statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions: Although further research is needed to evaluate the operating characteristics of MCI/dementia screening instruments in CKD, dialysis, and kidney transplantation, based on the current evidence, we recommend using the MoCA with a threshold of 24.

Indexed as

Accuracychronic kidney diseasecognitive impairmentdiagnostic performancekidney failurescreening

Identifiers

PMID40740722
PMCPMC12309950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.