Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
The diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairment—A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abayomi SN, Sritharan P, Yan E, Saripella A, Alhamdah Y, Englesakis M, Tartaglia MC, He D, Chung F. PLOS ONE, 2024
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This meta-analysis pooled 14 studies of the Mini-Cog, a 3-minute memory-and-clock-drawing test doctors can give in a routine visit, to see how well it catches dementia. Across roughly 7,200 people, it correctly identified about three-quarters of people who truly had dementia and correctly cleared about 83% of those who didn't, similar performance in primary care and memory-clinic settings.
Key findings
- 14 studies, 16 datasets, 7,194 total participants pooled
- For dementia detection: 76% sensitivity, 83% specificity, AUC 0.85 (6 studies, n=4,772)
- For MCI detection: 84% sensitivity, 79% specificity (2 studies, n=270)
- Primary care/community setting: 73% sensitivity, 84% specificity, AUC 0.84 (8 studies, n=5,620)
- Performance was similar in memory clinics: 73% sensitivity, 76% specificity
Why it matters
This meta-analysis pooled 14 studies of the Mini-Cog, a 3-minute memory-and-clock-drawing test, and found it correctly identified about three-quarters of people who truly had dementia and correctly cleared about 83% of those who didn't. Performance was similar in primary care and memory-clinic settings.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants7,194
- Effect sizeDementia: sensitivity 76%, specificity 83%, AUC 0.85; Primary care subgroup: sensitivity 73%, specificity 84%, AUC 0.84 (8 studies, n=5,620)
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
Included studies varied widely in population and reference standards, only a subset were low risk of bias, and a specificity range as low as 27% was seen in some individual studies (per related Cochrane review), so real-world performance can vary a lot by setting.
How this study scored 73/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for indexed in PubMed 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 45 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 73 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLOS ONE) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 7,194 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 45 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 73 out of 100. |
| Total | 73 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 9 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.
APA 7th
Abayomi, S. N., Sritharan, P., Yan, E., Saripella, A., Alhamdah, Y., Englesakis, M., et al. (2024). The diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairment—A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE.
Vancouver
Abayomi SN, Sritharan P, Yan E, Saripella A, Alhamdah Y, Englesakis M, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairment—A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2024.
BibTeX
@article{abayomi2024-fa7471cf,
author = {Abayomi, S. N. and Sritharan, P. and Yan, E. and Saripella, A. and Alhamdah, Y. and Englesakis, M. and Tartaglia, M. C. and He, D. and Chung, F.},
title = {{The diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog screening tool for the detection of cognitive impairment—A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {PLOS ONE},
year = {2024}
}
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.