Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Diagnostic accuracy of mini-mental status examination and revised hasegawa dementia scale for Alzheimer's disease
Kim KW, Lee DY, Jhoo JH, Youn JC, Suh YJ, Jun YH, Seo EH, Woo JI.. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2005-03-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
To compare the diagnostic accuracies of the Revised Hasegawa Dementia Scale (HDS-R) and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) for Alzheimer's diseases (AD), we administered them simultaneously to 82 AD patients and 82 age- and sex-matched nondemented control subjects. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) for AD of the HDS-R (AUC(HDS-R)) and MMSE (AUC(MMSE)) were bigger than 0.90 indicating that both tests are useful for detecting AD. However, AUC(HDS-R) (0.952) was significantly larger than that of the AUC(MMSE )(0.902) regardless of the educational level of the subjects, indicating that the HDS-R is more accurate than MMSE in diagnosing AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kim, K. W., Lee, D. Y., Jhoo, J. H., Youn, J. C., Suh, Y. J., Jun, Y. H., et al. (2005). Diagnostic accuracy of mini-mental status examination and revised hasegawa dementia scale for Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.1159/000084558
Vancouver
Kim KW, Lee DY, Jhoo JH, Youn JC, Suh YJ, Jun YH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mini-mental status examination and revised hasegawa dementia scale for Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2005. doi:10.1159/000084558. PMID: 15785033.
BibTeX
@article{kim2005-15785033,
author = {Kim, K. W. and Lee, D. Y. and Jhoo, J. H. and Youn, J. C. and Suh, Y. J. and Jun, Y. H. and Seo, E. H. and Woo, J. I.},
title = {{Diagnostic accuracy of mini-mental status examination and revised hasegawa dementia scale for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1159/000084558},
pmid = {15785033},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000084558}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) for AD of the HDS-R (AUC(HDS-R)) and MMSE (AUC(MMSE)) were bigger than 0.90 indicating that both tests are useful for detecting AD.
- However, AUC(HDS-R) (0.952) was significantly larger than that of the AUC(MMSE )(0.902) regardless of the educational level of the subjects, indicating that the HDS-R is more accurate than MMSE in diagnosing AD.
- Moreover, the superiority of the HDS-R (AUC(HDS-R) = 0.894) to the MMSE (AUC(MMSE) = 0.704) remained significant in mild AD patients alone, who are the focus of screening.
- In conclusion, the HDS-R is better than the MMSE as a screening instrument for AD.
Why it matters
In 82 Alzheimer's disease patients and 82 matched controls, both the Revised Hasegawa Dementia Scale and the MMSE detected Alzheimer's disease well, but the Hasegawa scale was significantly more accurate. This concerns diagnosis only and does not address treating, curing or preventing the disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 38 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders: journal h-index 149 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 5 / 7 | Cited 148 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 6.4 citations a year over 23 year(s) since 2005 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 3 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 18 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author J. I. Woo holds only 2 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Seoul National University: institution h-index 1,053 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15785033) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “examination”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.