Chinese version of montreal cognitive assessment basic for discrimination among different severities of alzheimer’s disease

104Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To find out whether the Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-BC) and its subtests could be applied in discrimination among cognitively normal controls (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild and moderate Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), and furthermore, to determine the optimal cutoffs most sensitive to distinguish between them. Design: A cross-sectional validation study. Setting: Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China. Participants: There was a total of 1,969 participants: individuals with MCI (n=663), mild (n=345), moderate (n=441) AD, and cognitively NC (n=520) were recruited from the Memory Clinic, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China. Measurements: Baseline MoCA-BC scores were collected from firsthand data. Two subtests were calculated from MoCA-BC: the Memory Index Score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-MIS) and the Non-memory Index Score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-NM). Results: MoCA-BC was an effective cognitive tool to discriminate among NC, MCI, mild and moderate AD in the Chinese elderly across all education groups, implying that it was efficient not only for detecting MCI, but for different severities of AD as well. For MCI screening, the total score of MoCA-BC (MoCA-BC-T) and MoCA-BC-MIS had similar high sensitivity and specificity. For discrimination among MCI, mild and moderate AD, the MoCA-BC-T and MoCA-BC-NM had similar performance. Conclusion: MoCA-BC is an effective cognitive test to distinguish between NC, MCI, mild and moderate AD among the Chinese elderly with various levels of education.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huang, L., Chen, K. L., Lin, B. Y., Tang, L., Zhao, Q. H., Lv, Y. R., & Guo, Q. H. (2018). Chinese version of montreal cognitive assessment basic for discrimination among different severities of alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 14, 2133–2140. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S174293

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free