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. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To prospectively validate the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a UK memory clinic. Method We administered the MoCA and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) to 32 subjects fulfilling diagnostic criteria for dementia, to 23 subjects fulfilling diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to 12 memory clinic comparison subjects, at baseline and then at 6-month follow-up. Clinical diagnoses for dementia and MCI were made according to ICD-10 and Petersen criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of both measures were assessed for detection of MCI and dementia. Results With a cut-off score of 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 17% to detect subjects with MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 83%. The MMSE had a sensitivity of 25% to detect subjects with dementia, whereas the MoCA detected 94%. Specificity for the MMSE was 100%, and specificity for the MoCA was 50%. Of subjects with MCI, 35% developed dementia within 6 months, and all scored less than 26 points on the MoCA at baseline. Conclusions The MoCA is a useful brief screening tool for the detection of mild dementia or MCI in subjects scoring over 25 points on the MMSE. In patients already diagnosed with MCI, the MoCA helps identify those at risk of developing dementia at 6-month follow-up.

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

APA 7th

Smith, T., Gildeh, N., & Holmes, C. (2007). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: validity and utility in a memory clinic setting. Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370705200508

Vancouver

Smith T, Gildeh N, Holmes C. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: validity and utility in a memory clinic setting. Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. 2007. doi:10.1177/070674370705200508. PMID: 17542384.

BibTeX

@article{smith2007-17542384,
  author  = {Smith, T. and Gildeh, N. and Holmes, C.},
  title   = {{The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: validity and utility in a memory clinic setting}},
  journal = {Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.1177/070674370705200508},
  pmid    = {17542384},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370705200508}
}

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 With a cut-off score of 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 17% to detect subjects with MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 83%.

Why it matters

In this memory clinic study, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment detected 83% of subjects with mild cognitive impairment and 94% of subjects with dementia, compared with 17% and 25% for the Mini-Mental State Examination. Specificity for the Mini-Mental State Examination was 100%, and specificity for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was 50%.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Participants32
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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry: journal h-index 184 (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	2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	32 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 651 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	31.0 citations a year over 21 year(s) since 2007
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 6.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 15 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 112 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Clive Holmes: h-index 79 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of Southampton: institution h-index 938 (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 17542384)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	50 / 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 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

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

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.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →