Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 932

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Dalrymple-Alford, J.C., MacAskill, M.R., Nakas, C.T., Livingston, L., Graham, C., Crucian, G.P., Melzer, T.R., Kirwan, J., Keenan, R., Wells, S., Porter, R.J., Watts, R., Anderson, T.J.·2010·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: The MoCA is a suitably accurate, brief test when screening all levels of cognition in PD.

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 · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181fc29c9

Cites

41 of 41 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

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 932

Metadata

Authors
Dalrymple-Alford, J. C., MacAskill, M. R., Nakas, C. T., Livingston, L., Graham, C., Crucian, G. P., Melzer, T. R., Kirwan, J., Keenan, R., Wells, S., Porter, R. J., Watts, R., & Anderson, T. J.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2010-11-09
Volume
75
Issue
19
Pages
1717-1725
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2068606962
Cited by
932
References
41
FWCI
18.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The MoCA: Well-suited screen for cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181fc29c9
The paper
Dalrymple-Alford, J. C., MacAskill, M. R., Nakas, C. T., Livingston, L., Graham, C., Crucian, G. P., Melzer, T. R., Kirwan, J., Keenan, R., Wells, S., Porter, R. J., Watts, R., & Anderson, T. J. (2010). The MoCA: Well-suited screen for cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181fc29c9

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.