Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia are becoming increasingly common with the aging of most populations. The majority of individuals with dementia will first present for care and assessment in primary care settings. There is a need for brief dementia screening instruments that can accurately diagnose dementia in primary care settings. The Mini-Cog is a brief, cognitive screening test that is frequently used to evaluate cognition in older adults in various settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease dementia and related dementias in a primary care setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, initially to September 2012. Since then, four updates to the search were performed using the same search methods, and the most recent was January 2017. We used citation tracking (using the databases' 'related articles' feature, where available) as an additional search method and contacted authors of eligible studies for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included studies that evaluated the Mini-Cog as an index test for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia or related forms of dementia when compared to a reference standard using validated criteria for dementia. We only included studies that were conducted in primary care populations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted and described information on the characteristics of the study participants and study setting. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria we evaluated the quality of studies, and we assessed risk of bias and applicability of each study for each domain in QUADAS-2. Two review authors independently extracted information on the true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives and entered the data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). We then used RevMan 5 to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals. We summarized the sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies in forest plots and also plotted them in a receiver operating characteristic plot. We also created a 'Risk of bias' and applicability concerns graph to summarize information related to the quality of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: There were a total of four studies that met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 1517 total participants. The sensitivity of the Mini-Cog varied between 0.76 to 1.00 in studies while the specificity varied between 0.27 to 0.85. The included studies displayed significant heterogeneity in both methodologies and clinical populations, which did not allow for a meta-analysis to be completed. Only one study (Holsinger 2012) was found to be at low risk of bias on all methodological domains. The results of this study reported that the sensitivity of the Mini-Cog was 0.76 and the specificity was 0.73. We found the quality of all other included studies to be low due to a high risk of bias with methodological limitations primarily in their selection of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited number of studies evaluating the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of dementia in primary care settings. Given the small number of studies, the wide range in estimates of the accuracy of the Mini-Cog, and methodological limitations identified in most of the studies, at the present time there is insufficient evidence to recommend that the Mini-Cog be used as a screening test for dementia in primary care. Further studies are required to determine the accuracy of Mini-Cog in primary care and whether this tool has sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be useful as a screening test in this setting

Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a community setting.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease and related forms of dementia are becoming increasingly prevalent with the aging of many populations. The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease relies on tests to evaluate cognition and discriminate between individuals with dementia and those without dementia. The Mini-Cog is a brief, cognitive screening test that is frequently used to evaluate cognition in older adults in various settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting Alzheimer's disease dementia and related dementias in a community setting.Secondary objectives included investigations of the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies and potential sources of heterogeneity. These potential sources of heterogeneity included the baseline prevalence of dementia in study samples, thresholds used to determine positive test results, the type of dementia (Alzheimer's disease dementia or all causes of dementia), and aspects of study design related to study quality. Overall, the goals of this review were to determine if the Mini-Cog is a cognitive screening test that could be recommended to screen for cognitive impairment in community settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Science Citation Index (Web of Science), BIOSIS previews (Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), and the Cochrane Dementia Group's developing register of diagnostic test accuracy studies to March 2013. We used citation tracking (using the database's 'related articles' feature, where available) as an additional search method and contacted authors of eligible studies for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all cross-sectional studies that utilized the Mini-Cog as an index test for the diagnosis of dementia when compared to a reference standard diagnosis of dementia using standardized dementia diagnostic criteria. For the current review we only included studies that were conducted on samples from community settings, and excluded studies that were conducted in primary care or secondary care settings. We considered studies to be conducted in a community setting where participants were sampled from the general population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information from studies meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted including information on the characteristics of participants in the studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria and summarized using risk of bias applicability and summary graphs. We extracted information on the diagnostic test accuracy of studies including the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals of these measures and summarized the findings using forest plots. Study specific sensitivities and specificities were also plotted in receiver operating curve space. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1620 participants. The sensitivities of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.99, 0.76 and 0.99. The specificity of the Mini-Cog varied in the individual studies and was 0.93, 0.89 and 0.83. There was clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies which precluded a pooled meta-analysis of the results. Methodological limitations were present in all the studies introducing potential sources of bias, specifically with respect to the methods for participant selection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the Mini-Cog in community settings. The limited number of studies and the methodological limitations that are present in the current studies make it difficult to provide recommendations for or against the use of the Mini-Cog as a cognitive screening test in community settings. Additional well-designed studies comparing the Mini-Cog to other brief cognitive screening tests are required in order to determine the accuracy and utility of the Mini-Cog in community based settings

Depression rating scales for detection of major depression in people with dementia

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To identify the accuracy of depression rating scales as screening tools for detecting DpD and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different depression rating scales for detecting MDD among adults with Alzheimer's disease and related forms of dementia. To examine factors that may impact on the accuracy of depression rating scales that are used to diagnose depression. We will examine the reference standard used for verification of DpD, baseline prevalence of DpD in the study population, age of the underlying study population, gender of participants, type of dementia (any-cause dementia versus Alzheimer’s disease), study setting (community or primary care setting, long-term care, tertiary care setting), and study country as potential sources of heterogeneity. We will also evaluate the effects of using different cut-points of individual depression rating scales on the diagnostic accuracy of the scales

Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and other dementias within a secondary care setting

Background: The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias relies on clinical assessment. There is a high prevalence of cognitive disorders, including undiagnosed dementia in secondary care settings. Short cognitive tests can be helpful in identifying those who require further specialist diagnostic assessment; however, there is a lack of consensus around the optimal tools to use in clinical practice. The Mini‐Cog is a short cognitive test comprising three‐item recall and a clock‐drawing test that is used in secondary care settings. Objectives: The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Cog for detecting Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in a secondary care setting. The secondary objectives were to investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies and potential sources of heterogeneity. These potential sources of heterogeneity will include the baseline prevalence of dementia in study samples, thresholds used to determine positive test results, the type of dementia (Alzheimer's disease dementia or all causes of dementia), and aspects of study design related to study quality. Search methods: We searched the following sources in September 2012, with an update to 12 March 2019: Cochrane Dementia Group Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge), Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We made no exclusions with regard to language of Mini‐Cog administration or language of publication, using translation services where necessary. Selection criteria: We included cross‐sectional studies and excluded case‐control designs, due to the risk of bias. We selected those studies that included the Mini‐Cog as an index test to diagnose dementia where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with reference standard clinical assessment using standardised dementia diagnostic criteria. We only included studies in secondary care settings (including inpatient and outpatient hospital participants). Data collection and analysis: We screened all titles and abstracts generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS‐2 tool. We extracted data into two‐by‐two tables to allow calculation of accuracy metrics for individual studies, reporting the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals of these measures, summarising them graphically using forest plots. Main results: Three studies with a total of 2560 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, set in neuropsychology outpatient referrals, outpatients attending a general medicine clinic, and referrals to a memory clinic. Only n = 1415 (55.3%) of participants were included in the analysis to inform evaluation of Mini‐Cog test accuracy, due to the selective use of available data by study authors. There were concerns related to high risk of bias with respect to patient selection, and unclear risk of bias and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. In all studies, the Mini‐Cog was retrospectively derived from historic data sets. No studies included acute general hospital inpatients. The prevalence of dementia ranged from 32.2% to 87.3%. The sensitivities of the Mini‐Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.71), 0.60 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.72), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.90). The specificity of the Mini‐Cog for each individual study was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92), 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73), and 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). We did not perform meta‐analysis due to concerns related to risk of bias and heterogeneity. Authors' conclusions: This review identified only a limited number of diagnostic test accuracy studies using Mini‐Cog in secondary care settings. Those identified were at high risk of bias related to patient selection and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. The evidence was indirect, as all studies evaluated Mini‐Cog differently from the review question, where it was anticipated that studies would conduct Mini‐Cog and independently but contemporaneously perform a reference standard assessment to diagnose dementia. The pattern of test accuracy varied across the three studies. Future research should evaluate Mini‐Cog as a test in itself, rather than derived from other neuropsychological assessments. There is also a need for evaluation of the feasibility of the Mini‐Cog for the diagnosis of dementia to help adequately determine its role in the clinical pathway

Caregiving concerns and clinical characteristics across neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular disorders in the Ontario neurodegenerative disease research initiative

Objectives: Caregiving burdens are a substantial concern in the clinical care of persons with neurodegenerative disorders. In the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative, we used the Zarit\u27s Burden Interview (ZBI) to examine: (1) the types of burdens captured by the ZBI in a cross-disorder sample of neurodegenerative conditions (2) whether there are categorical or disorder-specific effects on caregiving burdens, and (3) which demographic, clinical, and cognitive measures are related to burden(s) in neurodegenerative disorders?. Methods/Design: N = 504 participants and their study partners (e.g., family, friends) across: Alzheimer\u27s disease/mild cognitive impairment (AD/MCI; n = 120), Parkinson\u27s disease (PD; n = 136), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; n = 38), frontotemporal dementia (FTD; n = 53), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD; n = 157). Study partners provided information about themselves, and information about the clinical participants (e.g., activities of daily living (ADL)). We used Correspondence Analysis to identify types of caregiving concerns in the ZBI. We then identified relationships between those concerns and demographic and clinical measures, and a cognitive battery. Results: We found three components in the ZBI. The first was “overall burden” and was (1) strongly related to increased neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI severity r = 0.586, NPI distress r = 0.587) and decreased independence in ADL (instrumental ADLs r = −0.566, basic ADLs r = −0.43), (2) moderately related to cognition (MoCA r = −0.268), and (3) showed little-to-no differences between disorders. The second and third components together showed four types of caregiving concerns: current care of the person with the neurodegenerative disease, future care of the person with the neurodegenerative disease, personal concerns of study partners, and social concerns of study partners. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the experience of caregiving in neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular diseases is individualized and is not defined by diagnostic categories. Our findings highlight the importance of targeting ADL and neuropsychiatric symptoms with caregiver-personalized solutions

Exposure to general anesthesia and risk of alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common among older adults and leads to significant disability. Volatile anesthetic gases administered during general anesthesia (GA) have been hypothesized to be a risk factor for the development of AD. The objective of this study is to systematically review the association between exposure to GA and risk of AD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Google scholar for observational studies examining the association between exposure to GA and risk of AD. We examined study quality using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias assessment for observational studies. We used standard meta-analytic techniques to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken to evaluate the robustness of the findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 15 case-control studies were included in the review. No cohort studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. There was variation in the methodological quality of included studies. There was no significant association between any exposure to GA and risk of AD (pooled OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.93 - 1.19, Z = 0.80, <it>p </it>= 0.43). There was also no significant association between GA and risk of AD in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A history of exposure to GA is not associated with an increased risk of AD although there are few high-quality studies in this area. Prospective cohort studies with long-term follow-up or randomized controlled trials are required to further understand the association between GA and AD.</p

Prevalence of cannabis withdrawal symptoms among people with regular or dependent use of cannabinoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Importance: Cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS)-a diagnostic indicator of cannabis use disorder-commonly occurs on cessation of heavy and prolonged cannabis use. To date, the prevalence of CWS syndrome has not been well described, nor have the factors potentially associated with CWS. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of CWS among individuals with regular or dependent use of cannabinoids and identify factors associated with CWS. Data Sources: A search of literature from database inception to June 19, 2019, was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Psychiatry online, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included articles. Articles were included if they (1) were published in English, (2) reported on individuals with regular use of cannabinoids or cannabis use disorder as a primary study group, (3) reported on the prevalence of CWS or CWS symptoms using a validated instrument, (4) reported the prevalence of CWS, and (5) used an observational study design (eg, cohort or cross-sectional). All abstracts, full-text articles, and other sources were reviewed, with data extracted in duplicate. Cannabis withdrawal syndrome prevalence was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis model, alongside stratification and meta-regression to characterize heterogeneity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cannabis withdrawal syndrome prevalence was reported as a percentage with 95% CIs. Results: Of 3848 unique abstracts, 86 were selected for full-text review, and 47 studies, representing 23 518 participants, met all inclusion criteria. Of 23 518 participants included in the analysis, 16 839 were white (72%) and 14 387 were men (69%); median (SD) age was 29.9 (9.0) years. The overall pooled prevalence of CWS was 47% (6469 of 23 518) (95% CI, 41%-52%), with significant heterogeneity between estimates (I2 = 99.2%). When stratified by source, the prevalence of CWS was 17% (95% CI, 13%-21%) in population-based samples, 54% in outpatient samples (95% CI, 48%-59%), and 87% in inpatient samples (95% CI, 79%-94%), which were significantly different (P < .001). Concurrent cannabis (β = 0.005, P < .001), tobacco (β = 0.002, P = .02), and other substance use disorders (β = 0.003, P = .05) were associated with a higher CWS prevalence, as was daily cannabis use (β = 0.004, P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that cannabis withdrawal syndrome appears to be prevalent among regular users of cannabis. Clinicians should be aware of the prevalence of CWS in order to counsel patients and support individuals who are reducing their use of cannabis