RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the discriminative validity of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) case-finding instrument in a general practice (GP) setting and compare it with other widely used brief cognitive instruments. METHODS: Patients aged ≥70 years were prospectively recruited from 14 Danish GP clinics. Participants were classified as having either normal cognition (n = 154) or cognitive impairment (n = 101) based on neuropsychological test performance, reported instrumental activities of daily living, and concern regarding memory decline. Comparisons involved the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS), the Mini-Cog, the 6-item Clock Drawing Test (CDT-6) and the BASIC Questionnaire (BASIC-Q). RESULTS: BASIC demonstrated good overall classification accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.92), a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.80) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.79-0.91). Pairwise comparisons of the AUCs of BASIC, MMSE, MoCA and RUDAS produced non-significant results, but BASIC had significantly higher classification accuracy than Mini-Cog, BASIC-Q and CDT-6. Depending on the pretest probability of cognitive impairment, the positive predictive validity of BASIC varied from 0.83 to 0.36, and the negative predictive validity from 0.97 to 0.76. CONCLUSIONS: BASIC demonstrated good discriminative validity in a GP setting. The classification accuracy of BASIC is equivalent to more complex, time-consuming instruments, such as the MMSE, MoCA and RUDAS, and higher than very brief instruments, such as the CDT-6, Mini-Cog and BASIC-Q.