ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
The performance of a novel, diabetes-specific cognitive screening tool against the MoCA in older adults with type 2 diabetes.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at a significantly greater risk of cognitive impairment than those without T2DM. Existing screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), are not tailored to the vascular cognitive profile characteristic of T2DM. To address this gap, we designed the Diabetic Cognitive Assessment Tool (DCAT), a simplified instrument for efficient screening of cognitive impairment in older adults with T2DM, and assessed its performance against the MoCA. The associations of glycaemic control, frailty, depression, education, age, and T2DM duration with cognitive performance were also assessed.
methodA cross-sectional study was conducted among 103 adults aged 65 years and older with T2DM attending a tertiary hospital diabetic clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa. Additionally, 55 age- and sex-comparable controls without T2DM were recruited. Cognitive function was assessed using the DCAT and MoCA, whereas frailty and depression were assessed using the FRAIL scale and Geriatric Depression Scale. DCAT performance relative to the MoCA was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and Youden's index identified the optimal cut-off. Associations between clinical and cognitive measures were analysed using Spearman's correlation, and Cohen's d quantified domain-specific effect sizes.
resultsThe DCAT's area under the curve was 0.81. Using a cut-off score of 13, the DCAT achieved a sensitivity of 78.4% and specificity of 78.7%, with positive and negative predictive values of 89.2%, and 56.9%, respectively. Among participants with T2DM, HbA1c levels correlated negatively with MoCA scores, and depression scores correlated negatively with both DCAT and MoCA scores. In both groups, years of education correlated positively with both cognitive measures. Age and T2DM duration did not correlate significantly with cognitive measures in either group. The executive function and memory domains exhibited large and medium effect sizes, respectively.
conclusionThe DCAT demonstrated good discriminative ability in screening for cognitive impairment among older adults with T2DM. Poorer glycaemic control and depressive symptoms were associated with lower cognitive performance, whereas greater educational attainment was associated with better outcomes. The DCAT effectively assesses key cognitive domains, particularly executive function and memory. Further validation in larger, more diverse cohorts is warranted.
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.