Diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of combined use of Fototest and Mini-Cog in cognitive impairment

INTRODUCTIONThe Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment.METHODSWe performed a phase III diagnostic accuracy study with 2...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurología (Barcelona, English ed. ) English ed. ), 2023-11, Vol.38 (9), p.653-662
Hauptverfasser: Carnero-Pardo, C., López-Alcalde, S., Florido-Santiago, M., Espinosa-García, M., Rego-García, I., Calle-Calle, R., Carrera-Muñoz, I., de la Vega-Cotarelo, R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:INTRODUCTIONThe Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment.METHODSWe performed a phase III diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets.RESULTSThe diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs 233.9 s [45.2]; P < .0001).CONCLUSIONSCombined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.
ISSN:2173-5808
2173-5808
DOI:10.1016/j.nrleng.2023.10.002