ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Which assessment tools best distinguish between mild cognitive impairment and dementia? Lessons from a Slovak memory clinic cohort.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe utility of various cognitive assessment tools for distinguishing between mild impairment and dementia, as well as for determining cutoff values for specific populations, continues to be the subject of extensive research. Here, we assessed the utility and feasibility of these tools in the first Slovak memory clinic cohort.
methodsWe enrolled a Slovak memory clinic cohort of patients with MCI and dementia (MCI, n = 84; dementia, n = 55). The participants were characterized using a range of cognitive assessment tools-Auditory Verbal Learning (AVLT), Category and Letter Fluency (CFT, LFT), Digit Span (DSF, DSB), Digit-Symbol Coding (DS-C), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), MMSE, MoCA, Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF), and Trail Making Test (TMTA, TMTB); clinical assessments-Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (A-IADL) and 5-level EuroQol questionnaire with 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-5 L); and scales for anxiety, dependency, depression, dignity, and MRI volumetry. The ability of the various assessments to distinguish between MCI and dementia was evaluated.
resultsOver the course of three years, at a single memory clinic, it was feasible to enrol and evaluate a total of 150 participants, 139 of whom fulfilled the definition of either MCI or nonvascular dementia. Of the employed cognitive and clinical assessment tools, the best differentiation between MCI and dementia was observed for the AVLT and A-IADL. The DSF and DSB tests did not reveal differences between the populations. No differences were observed in education, vital signs, or anthropometric measurements. Participants with dementia had greater degrees of brain atrophy in the hippocampi and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortex; lower total brain volumes; and greater ventricular dilation.
conclusionsThis study confirms the utility of a range of cognitive assessment tools and scales for differentiating between MCI and dementia but reveals that some commonly employed tools, such as the DSF and DSB, may not be sensitive to these differences. This study highlights the importance of accurate assessment of the ability to perform activities of daily living and supports the development of objective, ecologically valid assessments of IADL.
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.