Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MoCA, ACE-R, and MMSE Versus the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards Neuropsychological Battery After TIA and Stroke

Open access
Pendlebury, Sarah T., Mariz, Jose, Bull, Linda, Mehta, Ziyah, Rothwell, Peter M.·2012·Stroke
DOI 10.1161/strokeaha.111.633586
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and Purpose—: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination–Revised (ACE-R) are proposed as short cognitive tests for use after stroke, but there are few published validations against a neuropsychological battery. We studied the relationship between MoCA, ACE-R, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in patients with cerebrovascular disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods—: One hundred consecutive non-institutionalized patients had the MMSE, MoCA, ACE-R, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Harmonization Standards Neuropsychological Battery ≥1 year after transient ischemic attack or stroke in a population-based study. MCI was diagnosed using modified Petersen criteria in which subjective cognitive complaint is not required (equivalent to cognitive impairment–no dementia) and subtyped by number and type of cognitive domains affected. Results—: Among 91 nondemented subjects completing neuropsychological testing (mean/SD age, 73.4/11.6 years; 44% female; 56% stroke), 39 (42%) had MCI (amnestic multiple domain=10, nonamnestic multiple domain=9, nonamnestic single domain=19, amnestic single domain=1). Sensitivity and specificity for MCI were optimal with MoCA <25 (sensitivity=77%, specificity=83%) and ACE-R <94 (sensitivity=83%, specificity=73%). Both tests detected amnestic MCI better than nonamnestic single-domain impairment. MMSE only achieved sensitivity >70% at a cutoff of <29, mainly due to relative insensitivity to single-domain impairment. Conclusions—: The MoCA and ACE-R had good sensitivity and specificity for MCI defined using the Neurological Disorders and Stroke–Canadian Stroke Network Vascular Cognitive Impairment Battery ≥1 year after transient ischemic attack and stroke, whereas the MMSE showed a ceiling effect. However, optimal cutoffs will depend on use for screening (high sensitivity) or diagnosis (high specificity). Lack of timed measures of processing speed may explain the relative insensitivity of the MoCA and ACE-R to single nonmemory domain impairment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/strokeaha.111.633586

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Pendlebury, S. T., Mariz, J., Bull, L., Mehta, Z., & Rothwell, P. M.
Venue
Stroke
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2012-02
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
464-469
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
DOI
10.1161/strokeaha.111.633586
OpenAlex
W2168477118
Cited by
398
References
38
FWCI
12.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.