Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Background Currently the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is widely used as a screening instrument for dementia syndrome. Diagnostic validity may be lowered in old age by normal age-related cognitive decline. Furthermore, visual impairment, occurring frequently in old age, leads to missing values which prevent an interpretation of the test result. Method In the Berlin Ageing Study (n = 516, age range 70-103 years) MMSE and clinical dementia diagnosis, made by a psychiatrist investigating all subjects by the Geriatric Mental State-A and History and Aetiology Schedule interviews, were investigated independently. The MMblind was analysed, an MMSE version for vision impairment in which all items requiring image processing are omitted. The study sample is population-based; dementia cases (DSM-III-R) were excluded on the basis of the clinical diagnosis. Results Norms are reported for very old age regarding MMSE as well as MMblind. There is a considerable age effect on MMSE scores. In contrast to MMSE, sensitivity and specificity of the shorter MMblind version are not reduced. Conclusions The considerable age effect requires the adaptation of cut-off values for old age. The blind version of the MMSE seems to be a valid instrument improving the applicability of the MMSE in old age.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Reischies, F. M., & Geiselmann, B. (1997). Age-related cognitive decline and vision impairment affecting the detection of dementia syndrome in old age. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.171.5.449

Vancouver

Reischies FM, Geiselmann B. Age-related cognitive decline and vision impairment affecting the detection of dementia syndrome in old age. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 1997. doi:10.1192/bjp.171.5.449. PMID: 9463604.

BibTeX

@article{reischies1997-9463604,
  author  = {Reischies, F. M. and Geiselmann, B.},
  title   = {{Age-related cognitive decline and vision impairment affecting the detection of dementia syndrome in old age}},
  journal = {The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science},
  year    = {1997},
  doi     = {10.1192/bjp.171.5.449},
  pmid    = {9463604},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.171.5.449}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 26 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.26 of the 58 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 2 / 4 516 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9463604)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 26 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Risk factors

Also in Risk factors

356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →