For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
30
views
13
references
 Top references
cited by
7
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      766
      similar
       All similar

      Call for Papers: Sex and Gender in Neurodegenerative Diseases

      Submit here before September 30, 2024

      About Neurodegenerative Diseases: 1.9 Impact Factor I 5.9 CiteScore I 0.648 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Chinese (Cantonese) Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Patients with Subcortical Ischemic Vascular Dementia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Subcortical ischemic vascular dementia (SIVD) has been proposed as the most frequent subtype of vascular cognitive impairment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese (Cantonese) Montreal Cognitive Assessment (CC- MoCA) in patients with SIVD in the Guangdong Province of China. Methods: 71 SIVD patients and 60 matched controls were recruited for the CC-MoCA, Mini Mental State Examination and executive clock drawing tasks. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to determine optimal sensitivity and specificity of the CC-MoCA total score in differentiating mild vascular dementia (VaD) patients from moderate VaD patients and controls. Results: The mean CC-MoCA scores of the controls, and mild and moderate VaD patients were 25.2 ± 3.8, 16.4 ± 3.7, and 10.0 ± 5.1, respectively. In our study, the optimal cutoff value for the CC-MoCA to be able to differentiate patients with mild VaD from controls is 21/22, and 13/14 to differentiate mild VaD from moderate VaD. Conclusion: The CC-MoCA is a useful cognitive screening instrument in SIVD patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A new rating scale for age-related white matter changes applicable to MRI and CT.

          L Wahlund, F. Barkhof, F Fazekas … (2001)
          MRI is more sensitive than CT for detection of age-related white matter changes (ARWMC). Most rating scales estimate the degree and distribution of ARWMC either on CT or on MRI, and they differ in many aspects. This makes it difficult to compare CT and MRI studies. To be able to study the evolution and possible effect of drug treatment on ARWMC in large patient samples, it is necessary to have a rating scale constructed for both MRI and CT. We have developed and evaluated a new scale and studied ARWMC in a large number of patients examined with both MRI and CT. Seventy-seven patients with ARWMC on either CT or MRI were recruited and a complementary examination (MRI or CT) performed. The patients came from 4 centers in Europe, and the scans were rated by 4 raters on 1 occasion with the new ARWMC rating scale. The interrater reliability was evaluated by using kappa statistics. The degree and distribution of ARWMC in CT and MRI scans were compared in different brain areas. Interrater reliability was good for MRI (kappa=0.67) and moderate for CT (kappa=0.48). MRI was superior in detection of small ARWMC, whereas larger lesions were detected equally well with both CT and MRI. In the parieto-occipital and infratentorial areas, MRI detected significantly more ARWMC than did CT. In the frontal area and basal ganglia, no differences between modalities were found. When a fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequence was used, MRI detected significantly more lesions than CT in frontal and parieto-occipital areas. No differences were found in basal ganglia and infratentorial areas. We present a new ARWMC scale applicable to both CT and MRI that has almost equal sensitivity, except for certain regions. The interrater reliability was slightly better for MRI, as was the detectability of small lesions.
          Article 0 comments Cited 396 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The MoCA: well-suited screen for cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease.

            J. Dalrymple-Alford, M. R. MacAskill, C. T. Nakas … (2010)
            To establish the diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) when screening externally validated cognition in Parkinson disease (PD), by comparison with a PD-focused test (Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson disease-Cognition [SCOPA-COG]) and the standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (S-MMSE) as benchmarks. A convenience sample of 114 patients with idiopathic PD and 47 healthy controls was examined in a movement disorders center. The 21 patients with dementia (PD-D) were diagnosed using Movement Disorders Society criteria, externally validated by detailed independent functional and neuropsychological tests. The 21 patients with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) scored 1.5 SD or more below normative data in at least 2 measures in 1 of 4 cognitive domains. Other patients had normal cognition (PD-N). Primary outcomes using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses showed that all 3 mental status tests produced excellent discrimination of PD-D from patients without dementia (area under the curve [AUC], 87%-91%) and PD-MCI from PD-N patients (AUC, 78%-90%), but the MoCA was generally better suited across both assessments. The optimal MoCA screening cutoffs were <21/30 for PD-D (sensitivity 81%; specificity 95%; negative predictive value [NPV] 92%) and <26/30 for PD-MCI (sensitivity 90%; specificity 75%; NPV 95%). Further support that the MoCA is at least equivalent to the SCOPA-COG, and superior to the S-MMSE, came from the simultaneous classification of the 3 PD patient groups (volumes under a 3-dimensional ROC surface, chance = 17%: MoCA 79%, confidence interval [CI] 70%-89%; SCOPA-COG 74%, CI 62%-86%; MMSE-Sevens item 56%, CI 44%-68%; MMSE-World item 62%, CI 50%-73%). The MoCA is a suitably accurate, brief test when screening all levels of cognition in PD.
            Article 0 comments Cited 305 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cross validation of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in community dwelling older adults residing in the Southeastern US.

              Cheryl Luis, Andrew Keegan, Michael Mullan (2009)
              Cross validation study of the MoCA for the detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in a community-based cohort residing in the Southeastern United States. One hundred and eighteen English-speaking older adults, who underwent diagnostic evaluation as part of an on-going prospective study, were administered the MoCA and MMSE. Twenty were diagnosed with AD, 24 met criteria for amnestic MCI and 74 were considered cognitively normal. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated using the recommended cut-off scores and ROC curve analyses were performed to determine optimal sensitivity and specificity. The influence of age, education and gender on MoCA score was also examined. Using a cut-off score of 24 or below, the MMSE was insensitive to cognitive impairment. Using the recommended cut-off score of 26, the MoCA detected 97% of those with cognitive impairment but specificity was fair (35%). Using a lower cut-off score of 23, the MoCA exhibited excellent sensitivity (96%) and specificity (95%). The MoCA appears to have utility as a cognitive screen for early detection of AD and for MCI and warrants further investigation regarding its applicability in primary care settings, varying ethnic groups, and younger at-risk individuals. (c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Article 0 comments Cited 164 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (publisher-id): DEE
                Journal ID (pmc): DEE
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.1664-5464
                Title: Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra
                Publisher: S. Karger AG
                ISSN (Electronic): 1664-5464
                Publication date Subscription-year: 2011
                Publication date Collection: January – December 2011
                Publication date (Electronic): 21 September 2011
                Volume: 1
                Issue: 1
                Pages: 276-282
                Affiliations
                Department of Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                *Jin-song You, Department of Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 11 Dade Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510120 (China), Tel. +86 20 8188 7233, ext. 34729/34730, E-Mail youjs73@yahoo.com.cn
                Article
                Publisher ID: 331238 Pmcid ID: PMC3235938 Other ID: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Extra 2011;1:276–282
                DOI: 10.1159/000331238
                PMC ID: PMC3235938
                PubMed ID: 22545038
                SO-VID: 385c7811-695d-4f81-8b2d-41aaaebda71c
                Copyright © © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
                License:

                Open Access License: This is an Open Access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC) ( http://www.karger.com/OA-license), applicable to the online version of the article only. Distribution permitted for non-commercial purposes only. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Subject: Original Research Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Geriatric medicine,Neurology,Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurosciences,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health
                Keywords: Dementia,Neuropsychology,Cognitive impairments,Vascular dementia,Montreal Cognitive Assessment
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Geriatric medicine, Neurology, Cardiovascular Medicine, Neurosciences, Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry, Public health
                Keywords: Dementia, Neuropsychology, Cognitive impairments, Vascular dementia, Montreal Cognitive Assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content766

                See all similar

                Cited by7

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors578

                See all reference authors