A meta-analysis of the accuracy of the mini-mental state examination in the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.

This study shows that vignettes are a valid tool for measuring the quality of clinical practice. They are particularly useful for evaluating quality when practice-based assessment is difficult beca...

Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: A prospective validation study

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with moderate to severe AD (standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [sMMSE] scores of 5 to 17; Functional Assessment Staging score ≤6 at baseline). Methods: Two-hundred ninety patients were randomized to treatment in this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received either donepezil 5 mg/day for the first 28 days and 10 mg/day thereafter as per the clinician’s judgment (n = 144) or placebo (n = 146). The primary outcome measure was the Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression of Change with caregiver input (CIBIC+). Results: Patients’ mean age was 73.6 years (range 48 to 92 years). Baseline demographics were similar between the treatment groups. Least squares (LS) mean ± SE sMMSE scores at baseline were 11.7 ± 0.35 for the donepezil group and 12.0 ± 0.34 for the placebo group. Patients receiving donepezil showed benefits on the CIBIC+, compared with placebo, at all visits up to week 24 ( p p Conclusion: These data suggest that donepezil’s benefits extend into more advanced stages of AD than those previously investigated, with very good tolerability.

A 24-week, randomized, double-blind study of donepezil in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease.

CLINICAL SCENARIO You are about to see a 76-year-old retired schoolteacher for the second time. You first saw her in the clinic a month ago because of cognitive problems. Your evaluation at that time included a Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination,1on which she scored 18 out of a possible 30 points, and a physical examination that was normal including no focal neurological signs. You arranged investigations for the treatable causes of dementia that were negative, and you thus feel she has probable Alzheimer's disease. The patient has lived with her son since her husband died 6 years ago. Her son thinks that she first developed significant problems with her memory about 3 years ago. However, she has become increasingly agitated and paranoid during the last year. She has refused to allow him to look after her financial affairs, despite the fact that she owns three pieces of property and

https://peds.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/curriculum-files/r-usersguide_prognosis_000.pdf

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: V. How to Use an Article About Prognosis

Background
The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia.

Objectives
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia.

Search methods
We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall.

Selection criteria
We included studies that compared the 11-item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all-cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all-cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating.

Data collection and analysis
At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver-operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method.

Main results
We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full-text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta-analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta-analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.

The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14-30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17-26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta-analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data.

Authors' conclusions
The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient-relevant outcomes.

/pdf/mini-mental-state-examination-mmse-for-the-detection-of-2hf8fes1sc.pdf

Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination with that of a new Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination, which has expanded guidelines for administration and scoring. Method The subjects were 32 stable elderly residents of a nursing home and 16 elderly residents of a chronic care hospital unit. Six raters administered the Folstein Mini-Mental State to 22 of these stable elderly subjects, and five raters administered the standardized version to 26 of these subjects. Each subject was tested on three different occasions 1 week apart. Each rater tested 4-6 subjects at the first and third weeks and 4-6 different subjects at the second week. The analytic technique used was one-way analysis of variance to estimate the interrater variance and the intrarater variance. Results The intrarater variance on all occasions was reduced by 86% and the interrater variance was reduced by 76% when the Standardized Mini-Mental State was used; the reductions in variance were significant (p less than 0.003). The intraclass correlation for the Mini-Mental State was 0.69; for the standardized version it was 0.90. It took less time to administer the Standardized Mini-Mental State than the Mini-Mental State. Conclusions The Standardized Mini-Mental State had better reliability than the Mini-Mental State in this study group. Although the improved reliability of the Standardized Mini-Mental State was achieved by reducing measurement noise, this advantage would likely occur in a broad spectrum of patients.

Reliability of a Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination compared with the traditional Mini-Mental State Examination.

Reliability of a standardized Mini-Mental State Examination compared with the traditional Mini-Mental State Examination

OBJECTIVES: To determine what treatment decisions physicians will make when faced with an incompetent elderly patient with life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding and to identify the factors that affect their decisions. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Family practice, medical and geriatrics rounds in academic medical centres and community hospitals in seven countries. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians who regularly cared for incompetent elderly patients. OUTCOME MEASURE: A self-administered questionnaire containing three case vignettes. Each provided the same details on an incompetent elderly patient; however, one gave no information about the wishes of the patient and his family (no directive), the second provided a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) request, and the third included a detailed therapeutic and resuscitative effort chart (DTREC) requesting maximum therapeutic care without admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The four treatment options were supportive care only, limited therapeutic care, maximum therapeutic care without admission to the ICU and maximum care with admission to the ICU. MAIN RESULTS: Treatment decisions varied and were systematically related to age, level of training and country (p less than 0.001). The older physicians and those in family medicine were less likely than the others to choose aggressive treatment options. Brazilian and US physicians were the most aggressive; Australian physicians were the most conservative. The DNR request resulted in a significant decrease in the number of physicians choosing aggressive options (p less than 0.001). The DTREC resulted in a move toward more aggressive treatment, as outlined in the directive (p less than 0.001). Overall, however, about 40% of the physicians chose a level of care different from what had been requested. Furthermore, over 10% would have tried cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite the DNR request. CONCLUSION: Treatment of incompetent elderly patients with life-threatening illness varies widely within and between countries. Uniform standards should be developed on the basis of societal values and be communicated to physicians.

Variability in physicians' decisions on caring for chronically ill elderly patients: an international study

OBJECTIVES: To determine what treatment decisions physicians will make when faced with a hypothetical incompetent elderly patient with life-threatening gastrointestinal bleeding and to examine the relative importance of physician characteristics and factors (legal and ethical concerns, hospital costs, level of dementia, patient9s age, physician9s religion, patient9s wishes and family9s wishes) in making those decisions. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Family practice, medical and geriatrics rounds in academic medical centres and community hospitals in seven countries. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians who regularly cared for incompetent elderly patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A self-administered questionnaire describing the elderly patient. Respondents were asked to choose one of four levels of care and to identify the level of importance factors had in making that decision. Older physicians, those less concerned about litigation, those for whom the level of dementia was important and those for whom the patient9s age was important were expected to give less aggressive care than the other physicians. MAIN RESULTS: Supportive care was chosen by 8.1% of the respondents, limited therapeutic care by 41.5%, maximum therapeutic care without admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) by 32.2% and maximum care with admission to the ICU by 18.2%. The patient9s wishes were reported by 91.0% as being extremely or very important in choosing the treatment. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that the following variables independently predicted the level of treatment: level of dementia, country of residence, duration of practice, legal concerns, patient9s age and ethical concerns. These factors were significantly correlated with the physicians9 treatment choices (p less than 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The importance that the physicians placed on the level of dementia was the strongest predictor of the level of care that would be provided. A societal consensus on the influence of cognitive function on the appropriate level of care as well as training of physicians in ethical issues are required.

E Alemayehu

Papers

Reliability of a Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination compared with the traditional Mini-Mental State Examination.

Reliability of a standardized Mini-Mental State Examination compared with the traditional Mini-Mental State Examination

Variability in physicians' decisions on caring for chronically ill elderly patients: an international study

Factors affecting physicians' decisions on caring for an incompetent elderly patient: an international study