ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Cognitive screening for MCI in low-educated and illiterate older adults: comparative diagnostic accuracy of four instruments.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCognitive assessment in older adults with low educational attainment presents a diagnostic limitation. Conventional instruments may show reduced accuracy in populations with limited literacy. Therefore, we aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of four cognitive screening instruments for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older adults with low education.
methodsIn this prospective study, adults aged ≥65 years with educational attainment at or below the primary school level were recruited from a geriatric outpatient clinic. Participants underwent assessment with the RUDAS, QMCI-TR, S-MMSE, and DemTect. MCI was diagnosed according to Petersen criteria by geriatricians blinded to cognitive screening test results. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed.
resultsA total of 242 participants (mean age 74.0 ± 5.8 years; 62.0% female) were included, of whom 100 (41.3%) had MCI. RUDAS demonstrated comparatively better diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.740, 95% CI 0.666-0.798), with a cut-off value of ≤23 yielding 83.0% sensitivity and 73.2% specificity. QMCI-TR and S-MMSE showed lower discriminative performance (AUCs 0.666 and 0.631, respectively), while DemTect showed no significant discriminative value (AUC 0.464). RUDAS remained the strongest independent predictor of MCI in multivariable analysis.
conclusionCognitive screening performance varied substantially across instruments in older adults with low educational backgrounds. While RUDAS showed the highest, albeit modest, diagnostic accuracy, other tools showed more limited or no diagnostic utility. Given that MCI represents a high-risk state for progression to dementia, these findings highlight the potential for misclassification, underscoring the need for appropriate test selection to improve early detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42560628What 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.