MMSE 2.0: A New Approach to an Old Measure

Albert, Steven M.

doi:10.1159/000366428

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The clinically meaningful change of cognitive function, taking MMSE as an example, depends on the baseline cognitive function of the participants. 85 A 1-point change on subjects whose baseline MMSE scores are high (i.e., [27][28][29][30] might not be considered clinically meaningful; however, for those whose MMSE scores at baseline are intermediate (i.e., 10-20), a 1-point change can be interpreted as substantial. 85 Experts consensus submitted that a 1 to 2 point change in MMSE test in a trial might be considered clinically important.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…85 A 1-point change on subjects whose baseline MMSE scores are high (i.e., [27][28][29][30] might not be considered clinically meaningful; however, for those whose MMSE scores at baseline are intermediate (i.e., 10-20), a 1-point change can be interpreted as substantial. 85 Experts consensus submitted that a 1 to 2 point change in MMSE test in a trial might be considered clinically important. 86 In this study, the change scores seen in cognitive functioning may be clinically meaningful using the anchor-based approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of dance intervention on agitation and cognitive functioning of people living with dementia in institutional care facilities: Systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of dance intervention on agitation and cognitive functioning of people living with dementia in institutional care facilities: Systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…42 Since higher scores on the MMSE scale meant a lower level of cognitive impairment, the algebraic signs for individual scores were reversed before analysis. 43 Therefore, SMDs with negative values suggested improvements, and positive values indicate impairment across all comparisons of continuous outcomes. For binary outcomes, we compared AAPs by estimating odds ratios (ORs) and their respective 95% CIs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pimavanserin and Other Atypical Antipsychotics for Parkinson’s Disease Psychosis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Yunusa

Rashid

Seyedin³

et al. 2023

J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The current comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) in treating Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) are not entirely understood. Objective To evaluate comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of AAPs in patients with PDP. Methods We conducted a systematic review and a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of pimavanserin, quetiapine, olanzapine, clozapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. We estimated relative standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results We included 19 unique studies evaluating AAPs in a total of 1,242 persons with PDP. Based on Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity, pimavanserin (SMD, −4.81; 95% CI, −5.39, −4.24) and clozapine (SMD, −4.25; 95% CI, −5.24, −3.26) significantly improved symptoms compared with placebo. Also, compared to placebo, pimavanserin (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.24) significantly improved psychotic symptoms based on Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis/Hallucinations and Delusions scores. In comparison to placebo, clozapine (SMD, −0.69; 95% CI, −1.35, −0.02), pimavanserin (SMD, −0.01; 95% CI, −0.56, 0.53), and quetiapine (SMD, 0.00; 95% CI, −0.68, 0.69) did not impair motor function per Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating scale. Based on Mini-Mental State Examination scale, quetiapine (SMD, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.07, 1.14) significantly impaired cognition compared to placebo. Conclusions In patients with PDP, pimavanserin and clozapine demonstrated significant improvement in psychosis without affecting motor function. With quetiapine being associated with a significant decline in cognition and despite not impairing motor function, our findings suggest that it should be avoided in patients with PDP and reduced cognitive abilities.

show abstract

“…Each day, patients were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. General data and condition monitoring indicators were collected, including the MMSE score to assess cognitive status upon admission (Albert, 2014). The Glasgow Coma Scale was used to evaluate the state of consciousness, and the APACHE II score was used to evaluate the severity of the illness (Knaus, Draper, Wagner, & Zimmerman, 1985).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishment and validation of a delirium prediction model for neurosurgery patients in intensive care

Wang

et al. 2020

Int J of Nursing Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Neurosurgical intensive care unit patients are at high risk for delirium. A risk prediction model could help the staff screen for patients at high risk for delirium. On the basis of this risk, preventive measures could be taken to reduce the undesired effects of delirium. Objectives To establish a delirium prediction model for neurosurgical intensive care unit patients and to verify the sensitivity and specificity of this model. Design A prospective, observational, single‐centre study. Methods Data were collected from a total of 310 patients admitted to the neurosurgery intensive care unit between January 2017 and February 2018. A risk factor prediction model was then created using multivariate logistic regression. Further data were collected from another 60 patients between March 2018 and June 2018 to validate the model. Results The model consisted of six predictors, namely, cognitive dysfunction on admission, fever, hypoalbuminaemia, abnormal liver function, sedative use four or more times, and physical restraint. The area under the curve of the model was 0.80, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.68 and 0.83, respectively. Conclusions This study established a delirium prediction model for neurosurgical intensive care unit patients, which we believe would help focused prevention of delirium in intensive care unit patients.

show abstract

MMSE 2.0: A New Approach to an Old Measure

Cited by 7 publications

References 4 publications

Effects of dance intervention on agitation and cognitive functioning of people living with dementia in institutional care facilities: Systematic review

Effects of dance intervention on agitation and cognitive functioning of people living with dementia in institutional care facilities: Systematic review

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pimavanserin and Other Atypical Antipsychotics for Parkinson’s Disease Psychosis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Establishment and validation of a delirium prediction model for neurosurgery patients in intensive care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About