Introducción: El Fototest y el Mini-Cog incluyen todos los dominios que debieran formar parte de una evaluación cognitiva. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la utilidad diagnóstica del uso conjunto de ambos instrumentos para el diagnóstico de deterioro cognitivo (DC). Métodos: Estudio fase iii de evaluación de pruebas diagnósticas con 2 muestras independientes, estudio (448 sujetos), dividida aleatoriamente en 2 dataset (Base 80%, Test 20%), y Externa (61 sujetos). Prueba index: Fototest y Mini-Cog aplicados consecutivamente; prueba de referencia: evaluación cognitiva formal. Se evalúa la UD del uso combinado y escalonado de los modelos simple (Comb-Simple), regresión logística (Comb-RL) y árbol aleatorio (Comb-AA) para identificar DC (GDS ≥ 3). Se realiza un análisis exploratorio en Base seleccionando los criterios que maximizan la exactitud; la evaluación se realiza en las muestras Test y externa mediante un análisis preespecificado con los criterios seleccionados. Resultados: La UD de los modelos combinados en Base (Comb-Simple 88,3 [(88,5-91,4] [exactitud, LI95%-LS95%], Comb-RL 91.6 [88,2-94,3] y Comb-AA 95,2 [92,5-97,2])) es significativamente superior a la de Mini-Cog y Fototest (81,6 [77,1-85,4] y 84,9 [80,8-88,5], respectivamente); estos resultados son replicados en Test (Comb-Simple 88,9 [exactitud], Comb-RL 95,6 y Comb-AA 92,2) y externa (Comb-Simple 91,8, Comb-RL 90,2 y Comb-AA 88,5). La aplicación escalonada mantiene la misma UD pero requiere menos tiempo (197,3 ± 56,7 vs. 233,9 ± 45,2, p < 0,0001). Conclusiones: El uso conjunto del Fototest y el Mini-Cog requiere menos de 4 min y mejora la UD de ambos instrumentos. El uso escalonado es más eficiente porque manteniendo la misma UD requiere menos tiempo de aplicación.(AU)
Introduction: The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment. Methods: We performed a phase iii diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs. consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets. Results: The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs. 233.9 s [45.2]; P<.0001). Conclusions: Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less...(AU)
Humans , Male , Female , Cognitive Dysfunction , Predictive Value of Tests , Mental Status and Dementia Tests , Neuropsychological Tests , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures , Neurology , Nervous System Diseases , Mass Screening
INTRODUCTION: The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment. METHODS: We performed a phase III diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs 233.9 s [45.2]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.
Cognitive Dysfunction , Dementia , Humans , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Dementia/diagnosis , Mental Status and Dementia Tests
Introducción y objetivos: Evaluar y comparar la utilidad diagnóstica (UD) para el cribado de deterioro cognitivo (DC) de los test cognitivos breves (TCB) recomendados por la Guía de práctica clínica sobre la atención integral a las personas con enfermedad de Alzheimer y otras demencias. Material y métodos: Estudio de fase iii de evaluación de pruebas diagnósticas en el que se ha incluido en Atención Primaria a sujetos con sospecha de DC. A todos se les ha aplicado Mini-Mental State Examination (Mini-Mental), Mini Examen Cognoscitivo (MEC), Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ), Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), test del reloj (TdR), Eurotest, Fototest y test de alteración de memoria (T@M). El diagnóstico de DC se ha realizado de forma independiente y cegada con respecto a los resultados de los TCB. La UD se ha evaluado mediante el área bajo la curva ROC (aROC). Resultados: Se ha incluido a 141 sujetos (86 con DC). El Eurotest y el T@M (0,91 ± 0,02 [aROC ± EE] y 0,90 ± 0,02, respectivamente), los instrumentos que requieren más tiempo (7,1 ± 1,8 [media ± DE] y 6,8 ± 2,2 min, respectivamente) tienen una UD significativamente superior a la del Mini-Mental, MEC, SPMSQ y TdR, pero no a la del MIS y Fototest (0,87 ± 0,03 ambas), requiriendo este último menos de la mitad del tiempo (2,8 ± 0,8 min). T@M y MIS solo evalúan memoria y el último no es aplicable a analfabetos. Conclusiones: Los instrumentos más recomendables para el cribado de DC en Atención Primaria son Eurotest, T@M y Fototest, siendo el último más eficiente por requerir la mitad de tiempo. (AU)
Introduction and objectives: This study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of brief cognitive tests for cognitive impairment (CI) screening recommended by the Spanish guidelines for the integral care of people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Material and methods: We performed a phase iii study into the accuracy of diagnostic tests, including patients with suspected CI in a primary care setting. All patients completed the MiniMental State Examination (MMSE), the Mini Examen Cognoscitivo (MEC), the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ), the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), the Eurotest, the Fototest, and the Memory Alteration Test (M@T). CI was diagnosed independently by researchers blinded to scores on these tests. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The study included 141 individuals (86 with CI). The Eurotest and M@T (AUC ± SE: 0.91 ± 0.02 and 0.90 ± 0.02, respectively) took longer to administer (mean [SD]: 7.1 [1.8] and 6.8 [2.2] min, respectively) and have significantly better diagnostic performance compared to the MMSE, MEC, SPMSQ, and CDT, but not compared to MIS or Fototest (both with an AUC of 0.87 ± 0.03), with the latter taking less than half as long to administer (2.8 [0.8] min). The M@T and MIS only evaluate memory, and the latter cannot be administered to illiterate people. Conclusion: The most advisable tests for CI screening in primary care are the Eurotest, M@T, and Fototest, with the latter being the most efficient as it takes half as long to administer. (AU)
Humans , Mass Screening , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Cognition Disorders/diagnosis , Neuropsychological Tests , Primary Health Care , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Dementia/diagnosis
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of brief cognitive tests for cognitive impairment (CI) screening recommended by the Spanish guidelines for the integral care of people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a phase iii study into the accuracy of diagnostic tests, including patients with suspected CI in a primary care setting. All patients completed the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Mini Examen Cognoscitivo (MEC), the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ), the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), the Eurotest, the Fototest, and the Memory Alteration Test (M@T). CI was diagnosed independently by researchers blinded to scores on these tests. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: The study included 141 individuals (86 with CI). The Eurotest and M@T (AUC±SE: 0.91±0.02 and 0.90±0.02, respectively) took longer to administer (mean [SD]: 7.1 [1.8] and 6.8 [2.2]min, respectively) and have significantly better diagnostic performance compared to the MMSE, MEC, SPMSQ, and CDT, but not compared to MIS or Fototest (both with an AUC of 0.87±0.03), with the latter taking less than half as long to administer (2.8 [0.8]min). The M@T and MIS only evaluate memory, and the latter cannot be administered to illiterate people. CONCLUSION: The most advisable tests for CI screening in primary care are the Eurotest, M@T, and Fototest, with the latter being the most efficient as it takes half as long to administer.
Cognitive Dysfunction , Neuropsychological Tests , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Cognition Disorders/diagnosis , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Dementia/diagnosis , Humans , Mass Screening
Introducción y objetivos: El Mini-Cog es un test cognitivo muy breve de uso extendido que incluye una tarea de memoria y una evaluación simplificada del Test del Reloj (TdR). No existe una evaluación formal del Mini-Cog en español; nuestro objetivo es analizar la utilidad diagnóstica (UD) del Mini-Cog y del TdR para deterioro cognitivo (DC). Métodos: Estudio transversal en el que se han incluido de forma sistemática todos los sujetos atendidos durante un semestre en una consulta de Neurología. La UD se ha evaluado para DC (incluye sujetos con criterios NIA-AA de Mild Cognitive Impairment o demencia) por medio del área bajo la curva ROC (aROC). Se han calculado los parámetros de sensibilidad (S), especificidad (E) y cocientes de probabilidad positivo y negativo (CP+, CP−) para los distintos puntos de corte. Resultados: Se han incluido 581 sujetos (315 DC), 55,1% mujeres y 27,7% con bajo nivel educativo (< estudios primarios). La UD del Mini-Cog es superior a la del TdR (0,88 ± 0,01 (aROC ± EE) vs 0,84 ± 0,01, p < 0,01); para ambos instrumentos la UD disminuye notablemente en sujetos con bajo nivel educativo (0,74 ± 0,05 y 0,75 ± 0,05, respectivamente). El punto de corte 2/3 del Mini-Cog tiene una S de 0,90 (0,87-0,93) y una E de 0,71 (0,65-0,76) y el 5/6 del TdR una S de 0,77 (0,72-0,81) y una E de 0,80 (0,75-0,85). Conclusiones: En consulta de Neurología, el Mini-Cog tiene una UD para DC aceptable, superior a la del TdR; ninguno de ellos es un instrumento adecuado para ser utilizado en sujetos con bajo nivel educativo. (AU)
Introduction and objectives: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. Results: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC ± sensitivity: 0.88 ± 0.01 vs 0.84 ± 0.01; P < .01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74 ± 0.05 vs 0.75 ± 0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85). Conclusion: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education. (AU)
Humans , Male , Female , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Mental Status and Dementia Tests , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dementia , Sensitivity and Specificity
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. RESULTS: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC⯱â¯sensitivity: 0.88⯱â¯0.01 vs 0.84⯱â¯0.01; Pâ¯<â¯.01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74⯱â¯0.05 vs 0.75⯱â¯0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85). CONCLUSION: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education.
Alzheimer Disease , Cognitive Dysfunction , Dementia , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Mental Status and Dementia Tests , Sensitivity and Specificity
INTRODUCTION: The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment. METHODS: We performed a phase iii diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs. consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs. 233.9 s [45.2]; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.
INTRODUCCIÓN: Se ha comunicado la asociación de ictus isquémico y COVID-19, con mayor frecuencia en aquellos pacientes más graves. Sin embargo, se desconoce en qué medida podría estar en relación con la inflamación sistémica y la hipercoagulabilidad producidas en el contexto de la infección. MÉTODOS: Descripción de 4 pacientes atendidos en nuestro centro por ictus isquémico y diagnóstico de COVID-19, clasificándolos según el grado de probabilidad causal entre el estado de hipercoagulabilidad y el ictus isquémico. Revisión de la literatura sobre los posibles mecanismos implicados en la etiopatogenia del ictus isquémico en este contexto. RESULTADOS: Dos pacientes se consideraron con alta probabilidad causal: presentaban infartos corticales, sin enfermedad cardioembólica ni arterial significativa, con parámetros de inflamación sistémica e hipercoagulabilidad; las otras 2 pacientes eran de edad avanzada y el ictus isquémico se consideró cardioembólico, con una probable asociación casual de COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: La inflamación sistémica, junto con la posible acción directa del virus, provocaría disfunción endotelial, generando un estado de hipercoagulabilidad que podría considerarse una causa potencial de ictus isquémico. Sin embargo, puesto que los mecanismos del ictus pueden ser múltiples, se precisan estudios más amplios que evalúen esta hipótesis. Mientras tanto, el estudio etiológico del ictus en pacientes con COVID-19 debe ser sistemático atendiendo a los protocolos vigentes, con las adaptaciones necesarias en relación con las circunstancias clínicas y epidemiológicas de la actual pandemia
INTRODUCTION: Ischaemic stroke has been reported in patients with COVID-19, particularly in more severe cases. However, it is unclear to what extent this is linked to systemic inflammation and hypercoagulability secondary to the infection. METHODS: We describe the cases of 4 patients with ischaemic stroke and COVID-19 who were attended at our hospital. Patients are classified according to the likelihood of a causal relationship between the hypercoagulable state and ischaemic stroke. We also conducted a review of studies addressing the possible mechanisms involved in the aetiopathogenesis of ischaemic stroke in these patients. RESULTS: The association between COVID-19 and stroke was probably causal in 2 patients, who presented cortical infarcts and had no relevant arterial or cardioembolic disease, but did show signs of hypercoagulability and systemic inflammation in laboratory analyses. The other 2 patients were of advanced age and presented cardioembolic ischaemic stroke; the association in these patients was probably incidental. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammation and the potential direct action of the virus may cause endothelial dysfunction, resulting in a hypercoagulable state that could be considered a potential cause of ischaemic stroke. However, stroke involves multiple pathophysiological mechanisms; studies with larger samples are therefore needed to confirm our hypothesis. The management protocol for patients with stroke and COVID-19 should include a complete aetiological study, with the appropriate safety precautions always being observed
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Stroke/virology , Pandemics , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Stroke/diagnostic imaging , Perfusion Imaging , Fatal Outcome , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
INTRODUCTION: Ischaemic stroke has been reported in patients with COVID-19, particularly in more severe cases. However, it is unclear to what extent this is linked to systemic inflammation and hypercoagulability secondary to the infection. METHODS: We describe the cases of 4 patients with ischaemic stroke and COVID-19 who were attended at our hospital. Patients are classified according to the likelihood of a causal relationship between the hypercoagulable state and ischaemic stroke. We also conducted a review of studies addressing the possible mechanisms involved in the aetiopathogenesis of ischaemic stroke in these patients. RESULTS: The association between COVID-19 and stroke was probably causal in 2 patients, who presented cortical infarcts and had no relevant arterial or cardioembolic disease, but did show signs of hypercoagulability and systemic inflammation in laboratory analyses. The other 2 patients were of advanced age and presented cardioembolic ischaemic stroke; the association in these patients was probably incidental. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammation and the potential direct action of the virus may cause endothelial dysfunction, resulting in a hypercoagulable state that could be considered a potential cause of ischaemic stroke. However, stroke involves multiple pathophysiological mechanisms; studies with larger samples are therefore needed to confirm our hypothesis. The management protocol for patients with stroke and COVID-19 should include a complete aetiological study, with the appropriate safety precautions always being observed.
Brain Ischemia/etiology , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Stroke/virology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Central Nervous System/virology , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke/blood , Thrombophilia/virology
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of brief cognitive tests for cognitive impairment (CI) screening recommended by the Spanish guidelines for the integral care of people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a phase iii study into the accuracy of diagnostic tests, including patients with suspected CI in a primary care setting. All patients completed the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Mini Examen Cognoscitivo (MEC), the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ), the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), the Eurotest, the Fototest, and the Memory Alteration Test (M@T). CI was diagnosed independently by researchers blinded to scores on these tests. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: The study included 141 individuals (86 with CI). The Eurotest and M@T (AUC ± SE: 0.91 ± 0.02 and 0.90 ± 0.02, respectively) took longer to administer (mean [SD]: 7.1 [1.8] and 6.8 [2.2] min, respectively) and have significantly better diagnostic performance compared to the MMSE, MEC, SPMSQ, and CDT, but not compared to MIS or Fototest (both with an AUC of 0.87 ± 0.03), with the latter taking less than half as long to administer (2.8 [0.8] min). The M@T and MIS only evaluate memory, and the latter cannot be administered to illiterate people. CONCLUSION: The most advisable tests for CI screening in primary care are the Eurotest, M@T, and Fototest, with the latter being the most efficient as it takes half as long to administer.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. RESULTS: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC±sensitivity: 0.88±0.01 vs 0.84±0.01; P<.01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74±0.05 vs 0.75±0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95%CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95%CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95%CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95%CI, 0.75-0.85). CONCLUSION: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education.
