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.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Background This aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in patients referred to a memory clinic, alone and in combination with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Methods This was a pragmatic prospective study of consecutive referrals attending a memory clinic (n = 150) over an 18-month period. Patients were diagnosed using standard clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia (DSM-IV) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI; cognitive impairment prevalence = 43%) independent of MoCA test scores.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

The record lists 150 participants. This prospective study of 150 memory clinic referrals assessed whether the MoCA works as a screening tool for cognitive impairment, alone and combined with the MMSE. It is about improving detection of cognitive impairment, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Larner, A. J. (2012). Screening utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): in place of--or as well as--the MMSE? International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610211001839

Vancouver

Larner AJ. Screening utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): in place of--or as well as--the MMSE? International psychogeriatrics. 2012. doi:10.1017/s1041610211001839. PMID: 22014176.

BibTeX

@article{larner2012-22014176,
  author  = {Larner, A. J.},
  title   = {{Screening utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): in place of--or as well as--the MMSE?}},
  journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.1017/s1041610211001839},
  pmid    = {22014176},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610211001839}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 150 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Methods This was a pragmatic prospective study of consecutive referrals attending a memory clinic (n = 150) over an 18-month period.
Patients were diagnosed using standard clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia (DSM-IV) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI; cognitive impairment prevalence = 43%) independent of MoCA test scores.
Results MoCA proved acceptable to patients and was quick and easy to use.
Using the cut-offs for MoCA and MMSE specified in the index paper (≥26/30), MoCA was more sensitive than MMSE (0.97 vs 0.65) but less specific (0.60 vs 0.89), with better diagnostic accuracy (area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve 0.91 vs 0.83).

Why it matters

This prospective study of 150 memory clinic referrals assessed whether the MoCA works as a screening tool for cognitive impairment, alone and combined with the MMSE. It is about improving detection of cognitive impairment, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Participants150
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	International Psychogeriatrics: journal h-index 161 (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	2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	150 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 249 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	15.6 citations a year over 16 year(s) since 2012
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 6.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 9 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 40 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Andrew J. Larner: h-index 48 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	Walton Centre: institution h-index 229 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22014176)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	45 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

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

9 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years

Also tagged “mini-mental”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mini-mental”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →