Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validation of the Russian Version of the MoCA Test as a Cognitive Screening Instrument in Cognitively Asymptomatic Older Individuals and Those With Mild Cognitive Impairment
Freud T, Vostrikov A, Dwolatzky T, Punchik B, Press Y.. Frontiers in medicine, 2020-08-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The mean age of the study population was 78 ± 6.6 years and 123 (76.9%) were women. The MoCA-Ru score was higher in the AC group than in those with MCI (24.3 ± 3.74 vs. 20.2 ± 3.07, P < 0.0001). At a cutoff value of ≥25, sensitivity was 0.99 and specificity 0.54, with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81. We found the Russian language version of the MoCA test to be a useful cognitive screening instrument for older people with mild cognitive impairment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Freud, T., Vostrikov, A., Dwolatzky, T., Punchik, B., & Press, Y. (2020). Validation of the Russian Version of the MoCA Test as a Cognitive Screening Instrument in Cognitively Asymptomatic Older Individuals and Those With Mild Cognitive Impairment. Frontiers in medicine. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00447
Vancouver
Freud T, Vostrikov A, Dwolatzky T, Punchik B, Press Y. Validation of the Russian Version of the MoCA Test as a Cognitive Screening Instrument in Cognitively Asymptomatic Older Individuals and Those With Mild Cognitive Impairment. Frontiers in medicine. 2020. doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.00447. PMID: 32903556.
BibTeX
@article{freud2020-32903556,
author = {Freud, T. and Vostrikov, A. and Dwolatzky, T. and Punchik, B. and Press, Y.},
title = {{Validation of the Russian Version of the MoCA Test as a Cognitive Screening Instrument in Cognitively Asymptomatic Older Individuals and Those With Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2020.00447},
pmid = {32903556},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00447}
}
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 mean age of the study population was 78 ± 6.6 years and 123 (76.9%) were women.
- The MoCA-Ru score was higher in the AC group than in those with MCI (24.3 ± 3.74 vs. 20.2 ± 3.07, P < 0.0001).
- At a cutoff value of ≥25, sensitivity was 0.99 and specificity 0.54, with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81.
- We found the Russian language version of the MoCA test to be a useful cognitive screening instrument for older people with mild cognitive impairment.
Study details
- Participants160
- Effect size76.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in medicine) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 160 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | — / 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32903556) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “moca”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “moca”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.