16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Sex and Gender in Neurodegenerative Diseases

      Submit here before September 30, 2024

      About Neurodegenerative Diseases: 1.9 Impact Factor I 5.9 CiteScore I 0.648 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Validity and Applications of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the Assessment of Vascular Cognitive Impairment

      review-article
      Cerebrovascular Diseases
      S. Karger AG
      Mild cognitive impairment, Stroke, Dementia, Review, Cognitive screening

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cognitive impairment is common among patients with stroke or other cerebrovascular disease and influences long-term outcome, including occupational functioning. Recognition and monitoring of mild cognitive impairment is thus essential to good patient care. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been suggested as a brief screening test of vascular cognitive impairment. This paper presents a critical review of the research literature evaluating the validity and utility of this test with the aim of informing future clinical and research practice. A total of 30 papers employing the MoCA in the context of cerebrovascular disease were identified. Reporting of the methods and results of such studies tended to fall short of the established reporting guidelines. Under-specification of the exclusion criteria applied and their impact make it difficult to assess the potential impact of sampling bias and loss to follow-up. Nevertheless, content validity evidence suggests that the MoCA covers most of the domains that represent cognitive impairment in cerebrovascular disease, with mixed evidence for its preferential sensitivity to the type of cognitive impairment encountered in the context of vascular disease. Evidence clearly supports the need to establish norms and cut-offs for the MoCA that are culturally appropriate and that are matched to the range of cognitive impairment that is present in the population being assessed. Recent modifications of the MoCA have been developed for assessing patients with visual impairment or restricted mobility, which may reduce the impact of ‘untestability' on cognitive screening in the clinic or research context. The MoCA correlates well with other measures of cognitive and functional abilities in patients with cerebrovascular disease, and may also predict future response to rehabilitation and long-term occupational outcome. Further research is needed to provide evidence for the validity of the MoCA in longitudinal studies. However, it compares favourably to the Mini Mental State Examination as a screening test that is sensitive to the milder forms of cognitive impairment that often accompany cerebrovascular disease.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cross validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in community dwelling older adults residing in the Southeastern US.

          Cross validation study of the MoCA for the detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in a community-based cohort residing in the Southeastern United States. One hundred and eighteen English-speaking older adults, who underwent diagnostic evaluation as part of an on-going prospective study, were administered the MoCA and MMSE. Twenty were diagnosed with AD, 24 met criteria for amnestic MCI and 74 were considered cognitively normal. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated using the recommended cut-off scores and ROC curve analyses were performed to determine optimal sensitivity and specificity. The influence of age, education and gender on MoCA score was also examined. Using a cut-off score of 24 or below, the MMSE was insensitive to cognitive impairment. Using the recommended cut-off score of 26, the MoCA detected 97% of those with cognitive impairment but specificity was fair (35%). Using a lower cut-off score of 23, the MoCA exhibited excellent sensitivity (96%) and specificity (95%). The MoCA appears to have utility as a cognitive screen for early detection of AD and for MCI and warrants further investigation regarding its applicability in primary care settings, varying ethnic groups, and younger at-risk individuals. (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Telephone assessment of cognition after transient ischemic attack and stroke: modified telephone interview of cognitive status and telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment versus face-to-face Montreal Cognitive Assessment and neuropsychological battery.

            Face-to-face cognitive testing is not always possible in large studies. Therefore, we assessed the telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA: MoCA items not requiring pencil and paper or visual stimulus) and the modified Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status (TICSm) against face-to-face cognitive tests in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke. In a population-based study, consecutive community-dwelling patients underwent the MoCA and neuropsychological battery >1 year after TIA or stroke, followed by T-MoCA (22 points) and TICSm (39 points) at least 1 month later. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was diagnosed using modified Petersen criteria and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) determined for T-MoCA and TICSm. Ninety-one nondemented subjects completed neuropsychological testing (mean±SD age, 72.9±11.6 years; 54 males; stroke 49%) and 73 had telephone follow-up. MoCA subtest scores for repetition, abstraction, and verbal fluency were significantly worse (P<0.02) by telephone than during face-to-face testing. Reliability of diagnosis for MCI (AUC) were T-MoCA of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.87) and TICSm of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90) vs face-to-face MoCA of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94). Optimal cutoffs were 18 to 19 for T-MoCA and 24 to 25 for TICSm. Reliability of diagnosis for MCI (AUC) was greater when only multi-domain impairment was considered (T-MoCA=0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96 and TICSm=0.83, 95% CI, 0.70-0.96) vs face-to-face MoCA=0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97). Both T-MoCA and TICSm are feasible and valid telephone tests of cognition after TIA and stroke but perform better in detecting multi-domain vs single-domain impairment. However, T-MoCA is limited in its ability to assess visuoexecutive and complex language tasks compared with face-to-face MoCA.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              MoCA, ACE-R, and MMSE versus the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards Neuropsychological Battery after TIA and stroke.

              The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) are proposed as short cognitive tests for use after stroke, but there are few published validations against a neuropsychological battery. We studied the relationship between MoCA, ACE-R, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in patients with cerebrovascular disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). One hundred consecutive non-institutionalized patients had the MMSE, MoCA, ACE-R, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards Neuropsychological Battery ≥ 1 year after transient ischemic attack or stroke in a population-based study. MCI was diagnosed using modified Petersen criteria in which subjective cognitive complaint is not required (equivalent to cognitive impairment-no dementia) and subtyped by number and type of cognitive domains affected. Among 91 nondemented subjects completing neuropsychological testing (mean/SD age, 73.4/11.6 years; 44% female; 56% stroke), 39 (42%) had MCI (amnestic multiple domain=10, nonamnestic multiple domain=9, nonamnestic single domain=19, amnestic single domain=1). Sensitivity and specificity for MCI were optimal with MoCA 70% at a cutoff of <29, mainly due to relative insensitivity to single-domain impairment. The MoCA and ACE-R had good sensitivity and specificity for MCI defined using the Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Battery ≥1 year after transient ischemic attack and stroke, whereas the MMSE showed a ceiling effect. However, optimal cutoffs will depend on use for screening (high sensitivity) or diagnosis (high specificity). Lack of timed measures of processing speed may explain the relative insensitivity of the MoCA and ACE-R to single nonmemory domain impairment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CED
                Cerebrovasc Dis
                10.1159/issn.1015-9770
                Cerebrovascular Diseases
                S. Karger AG
                1015-9770
                1421-9786
                2013
                September 2013
                30 July 2013
                : 36
                : 1
                : 6-18
                Affiliations
                Department of Neurology, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Que., Canada
                Author notes
                *Lisa Koski, PhD, The Allan Memorial Institute, P2.142, 1025 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC H3A 1A1 (Canada), E-Mail lisa.koski@mcgill.ca
                Article
                352051 Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;36:6-18
                10.1159/000352051
                23920318
                d14c654b-4c5f-401e-81a8-0c34f65ef677
                © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 04 March 2013
                : 10 May 2013
                Page count
                Tables: 1, Pages: 13
                Categories
                Review

                Geriatric medicine,Neurology,Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurosciences,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health
                Mild cognitive impairment,Stroke,Dementia,Review,Cognitive screening

                Comments

                Comment on this article