Validation of the Dutch version of the quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci-D)

Background: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from dementia is important, as treatment options differ. There are few short ( Method: The Qmci was translated into Dutch with a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. In all, 90 participants were recruited from a hospital geriatric clinic (25 with dementia, 30 with MCI, 35 with NC). The Qmci-D and SMMSE-D were administered sequentially but randomly by the same trained rater, blind to the diagnosis. Results: The Qmci-D was more sensitive than the SMMSE-D in discriminating MCI from dementia, with a significant difference in th... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Bunt, Steven
O'Caoimh, Ronan
Krijnen, Wim P.
Molloy, D. William
Goodijk, Geert Pieter
van der Schans, Cees P.
Hobbelen, Hans J. S. M.
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2015
Reihe/Periodikum: Bunt , S , O'Caoimh , R , Krijnen , W P , Molloy , D W , Goodijk , G P , van der Schans , C P & Hobbelen , H J S M 2015 , ' Validation of the Dutch version of the quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci-D) ' , BMC Geriatrics , vol. 15 , 115 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0113-1
Schlagwörter: Validity / Mild cognitive impairment / Dementia / Quick mild cognitive impairment screen / Screening / MINI-MENTAL-STATE / SERVICES TASK-FORCE / ALZHEIMERS-DISEASE / METAANALYSIS / PREVALENCE / GUIDELINES / DIAGNOSIS / ACCURACY / SMMSE
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-26671373
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://hdl.handle.net/11370/958daa52-116a-4600-b551-58b7cd44e19c

Background: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from dementia is important, as treatment options differ. There are few short ( Method: The Qmci was translated into Dutch with a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. In all, 90 participants were recruited from a hospital geriatric clinic (25 with dementia, 30 with MCI, 35 with NC). The Qmci-D and SMMSE-D were administered sequentially but randomly by the same trained rater, blind to the diagnosis. Results: The Qmci-D was more sensitive than the SMMSE-D in discriminating MCI from dementia, with a significant difference in the area under the curve (AUC), 0.73 compared to 0.60 (p = 0.024), respectively, and in discriminating dementia from NC, with an AUC of 0.95 compared to 0.89 (p = 0.006). Both screening instruments discriminated MCI from NC with an AUC of 0.86 (Qmci-D) and 0.84 (SMMSE-D). Conclusion: The Qmci-D shows similar,(good) accuracy as the SMMSE-D in separating NC from MCI; greater,(albeit fair), accuracy differentiating MCI from dementia, and significantly greater accuracy in separating dementia from NC. Given its brevity and ease of administration, the Qmci-D seems a useful cognitive screen in a Dutch population. Further study with a suitably powered sample against more sensitive screens is now required.