Comparison of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Australian geriatrics clinic

Roger Clarnette, Ronan O'Caoimh, Deanna N. Antony, Anton Svendrovski, D. William Molloy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. Methods: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. Results: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/−19), 52.5 (+/−12) and 36 (+/−14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/−5), 22 (+/−4) and 15 (+/−7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23). Conclusion: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)643–649
JournalInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2017

Fingerprint

Geriatrics
Dementia
Area Under Curve
Cognitive Dysfunction
Sensitivity and Specificity
Western Australia
Nuclear Family
ROC Curve
Teaching Hospitals

Cite this

@article{033c20e7e3aa48458981b2101c9628d2,
title = "Comparison of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Australian geriatrics clinic",
abstract = "Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. Methods: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. Results: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/−19), 52.5 (+/−12) and 36 (+/−14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/−5), 22 (+/−4) and 15 (+/−7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91{\%} and specificity of 93{\%} for cognitive impairment, compared with 87{\%} sensitivity and 80{\%} specificity for the MoCA (≤23). Conclusion: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population. Copyright {\circledC} 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
keywords = "Cognition, Dementia",
author = "Roger Clarnette and Ronan O'Caoimh and Antony, {Deanna N.} and Anton Svendrovski and Molloy, {D. William}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1002/gps.4505",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "643–649",
journal = "International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry",
issn = "0885-6230",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
number = "6",

}

Comparison of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Australian geriatrics clinic. / Clarnette, Roger; O'Caoimh, Ronan ; Antony, Deanna N.; Svendrovski, Anton ; Molloy, D. William .

In: International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Vol. 32, No. 6, 06.2017, p. 643–649.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Australian geriatrics clinic

AU - Clarnette, Roger

AU - O'Caoimh, Ronan

AU - Antony, Deanna N.

AU - Svendrovski, Anton

AU - Molloy, D. William

PY - 2017/6

Y1 - 2017/6

N2 - Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. Methods: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. Results: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/−19), 52.5 (+/−12) and 36 (+/−14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/−5), 22 (+/−4) and 15 (+/−7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23). Conclusion: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AB - Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA. Methods: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis. Results: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/−19), 52.5 (+/−12) and 36 (+/−14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/−5), 22 (+/−4) and 15 (+/−7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23). Conclusion: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KW - Cognition

KW - Dementia

U2 - 10.1002/gps.4505

DO - 10.1002/gps.4505

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 643

EP - 649

JO - International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

JF - International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

SN - 0885-6230

IS - 6

ER -