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.

50/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Cognitive decline is a broad syndrome ranging from non-pathological/age-associated cognitive decline to pathological dementia. Mild cognitive impairment MCI) is defined as the stage of cognition that falls between normal ageing and dementia. Studies have found that early lifestyle interventions for MCI may delay its pathological progression. Hence, this review aims to determine the most efficient cognitive tools to discriminate mild cognitive decline in its early stages. After a systematic search of five online databases, a total of 52 different cognitive tools were identified. The performance of each tool was assessed by its psychometric properties, administration time and delivery method. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, n = 15), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE, n = 14) and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT, n = 4) were most frequently cited in the literature. The preferable tools with all-round performance are the Six-item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT), MoCA (with the cut-offs of ≤24/22/19/15.5), MMSE (with the cut-off of ≤26) and the Hong Kong Brief Cognitive Test (HKBC). In addition, SAGE is recommended for a self-completed survey setting whilst a 4-point CDT is quick and easy to be added into other cognitive assessments. However, most tools were affected by age and education levels. Furthermore, optimal cut-off points need to be cautiously chosen while screening for MCI among different populations.

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

APA 7th

Chun, C. T., Seward, K., Patterson, A., Melton, A., & MacDonald-Wicks, L. (2021). Evaluation of Available Cognitive Tools Used to Measure Mild Cognitive Decline: A Scoping Review. Nutrients. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113974

Vancouver

Chun CT, Seward K, Patterson A, Melton A, MacDonald-Wicks L. Evaluation of Available Cognitive Tools Used to Measure Mild Cognitive Decline: A Scoping Review. Nutrients. 2021. doi:10.3390/nu13113974. PMID: 34836228.

BibTeX

@article{chun2021-34836228,
  author  = {Chun, C. T. and Seward, K. and Patterson, A. and Melton, A. and MacDonald-Wicks, L.},
  title   = {{Evaluation of Available Cognitive Tools Used to Measure Mild Cognitive Decline: A Scoping Review}},
  journal = {Nutrients},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3390/nu13113974},
  pmid    = {34836228},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113974}
}

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

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, n = 15), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE, n = 14) and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT, n = 4) were most frequently cited in the literature.
The preferable tools with all-round performance are the Six-item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT), MoCA (with the cut-offs of ≤24/22/19/15.5), MMSE (with the cut-off of ≤26) and the Hong Kong Brief Cognitive Test (HKBC).
In addition, SAGE is recommended for a self-completed survey setting whilst a 4-point CDT is quick and easy to be added into other cognitive assessments.
However, most tools were affected by age and education levels.
Furthermore, optimal cut-off points need to be cautiously chosen while screening for MCI among different populations.

Study details

Participants15
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 50/100

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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nutrients)
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	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	15 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 34836228)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	29 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total	50 / 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 Clinical safety

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.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →