Home › Research › Disparities
Simplifying detection of cognitive impairment: comparison of the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination in a multiethnic sample
Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J, Tu SP, Lessig M.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2005-05-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To compare detection of cognitive impairment using the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and to identify sociodemographic variables that influence detection in an ethnoculturally diverse sample. Design Cross-sectional. Setting A registry of the University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Satellite. Participants A heterogeneous community sample (n=371) of predominantly ethnic minority elderly assessed using a standardized research protocol, 231 of whom met criteria for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Measurements Demographic data, a standardized research protocol for cognitive assessment and dementia diagnosis, MMSE, and Mini-Cog. Results Both screens effectively detected cognitive impairment, the Mini-Cog slightly better than the MMSE (P Conclusion The Mini-Cog detects clinically significant cognitive impairment as well as or better than the MMSE in multiethnic elderly individuals, is easier to administer to non-English speakers, and is less biased by low education and literacy.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Borson, S., Scanlan, J. M., Watanabe, J., Tu, S. P., & Lessig, M. (2005). Simplifying detection of cognitive impairment: comparison of the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination in a multiethnic sample. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53269.x
Vancouver
Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J, Tu SP, Lessig M. Simplifying detection of cognitive impairment: comparison of the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination in a multiethnic sample. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2005. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53269.x. PMID: 15877567.
BibTeX
@article{borson2005-15877567,
author = {Borson, S. and Scanlan, J. M. and Watanabe, J. and Tu, S. P. and Lessig, M.},
title = {{Simplifying detection of cognitive impairment: comparison of the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination in a multiethnic sample}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53269.x},
pmid = {15877567},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53269.x}
}
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
- Results Both screens effectively detected cognitive impairment, the Mini-Cog slightly better than the MMSE (P<.01).
Why it matters
In a multiethnic sample of 371 older people, the Mini-Cog detected cognitive impairment as well as or better than the Mini-Mental State Examination and was less affected by low education and literacy. It is about improving detection of cognitive impairment, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants371
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 54/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 371 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 | 6 / 7 | Cited 320 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 13.9 citations a year over 23 year(s) since 2005 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 7.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 11 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 31 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Mary C. Lessig: h-index 14 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre 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 15877567) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 54 / 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
11 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Disparities
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.