The Mini-Cog: a cognitive ?vital signs? measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly

Borson, Soo; Scanlan, James M.; Brush, Michael; Vitaliano, Peter P.; Dokmak, Ahmed

doi:10.1002/1099-1166(200011)15:11<1021::aid-gps234>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 1,344 publications

(979 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

944

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study was designed to simplify and make transparent the optimal rules for scoring clocks in screening applications. Here, as in the original Mini-Cog paper (Borson et al, 2000) and a subsequent comparison of eight CDT systems (Scanlan et al, 2002), all systems thus far examined were less effective than the Mini-Cog, which combines the CDT with three-item delayed recall.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…COMPARING THE ALGORITHM WITH OTHER CDT SYSTEMS-Once the new CDT algorithm was created, we compared its relative specificity and sensitivity with three previously studied systems (Mendez, Shulman, and Wolf-Klein) and with the CDT used in the original Mini-Cog (Borson et al, 2000), using their published scoring rules. All CDT systems chosen for comparison have long histories of use, and include one previously shown to be sensitive but less specific (Mendez et al, 1992), one with balanced sensitivity and specificity (Shulman, 2000), and one with high specificity but low sensitivity (Wolf-Klein et al, 1989; data from Scanlan et al, 2002).…”

Section: Data Analysis Excluding Very Low Education Subjects (≤4 Yearmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Time that tells: critical clock-drawing errors for dementia screening

Lessig

Scanlan

Nazemi

et al. 2007

IPG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Clock-drawing tests are popular components of dementia screens but no single scoring system has been universally accepted. We sought to identify an optimal subset of clock errors for dementia screening and compare them with three other systems representative of the existing wide variations in approach (Shulman, Mendez, Wolf-Klein), as well as with the CDT system used in the Mini-Cog, which combines clock drawing with delayed recall.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Data Analysis Excluding Very Low Education Subjects (≤4 Yearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time that tells: critical clock-drawing errors for dementia screening

Lessig

Scanlan

Nazemi

et al. 2007

IPG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[17][18][19] Patients were asked to recall three words after performing a clock draw test. Scores range from 0-5, where 0-2 points indicates dementia.…”

Section: Patient-related Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 Scores range from 0-36 and were categorized as adequate (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36), marginal (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22), or inadequate health literacy (0-16). We treated health literacy as a dichotomous variable in our analyses (inadequate/ marginal vs. adequate).…”

Section: Patient-related Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Patient- and Medication-Related Factors on Inpatient Medication Reconciliation Errors

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:Little research has examined the incidence, clinical relevance, and predictors of medication reconciliation errors at hospital admission and discharge. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient-and medication-related factors that contribute to pre-admission medication list (PAML) errors and admission order errors, and to test whether such errors persist in the discharge medication list. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a crosssectional analysis of 423 adults with acute coronary syndromes or acute decompensated heart failure admitted to two academic hospitals who received pharmacistassisted medication reconciliation during the Pharmacist Intervention for Low Literacy in Cardiovascular Disease (PILL-CVD) Study. MAIN MEASURES:Pharmacists assessed the number of total and clinically relevant errors in the PAML and admission and discharge medication orders. We used negative binomial regression and report incidence rate ratios (IRR) of predictors of reconciliation errors. KEY RESULTS: On admission, 174 of 413 patients (42%) had ≥1 PAML error, and 73 (18%) had ≥1 clinically relevant PAML error. At discharge, 158 of 405 patients (39%) had ≥1 discharge medication error, and 126 (31%) had ≥1 clinically relevant discharge medication error. Clinically relevant PAML errors were associated with older age (IRR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.00-2.12) and number of pre-admission medications (IRR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25), and were less likely when a recent medication list was present in the electronic medical record (EMR) (IRR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.96). Clinically relevant admission order errors were also associated with older age and number of pre-admission medications. Clinically relevant discharge medication errors were more likely for every PAML error (IRR=1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.45) and number of medications changed prior to discharge (IRR=1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Medication reconciliation errors are common at hospital admission and discharge. Errors in preadmission medication histories are associated with older age and number of medications and lead to more discharge reconciliation errors. A recent medication list in the EMR is protective against medication reconciliation errors.

show abstract

“…This may be contributing to the shift away from it and towards the CDT and other cognitive screens. The CDT can now be found as a part of several more recently developed and validated cognitive assessments: (a) the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Nasreddine et al, 2005), (b) the MiniCog (Borson et al, 2000) (c) the 7 Minute Screen (Solomon et al, 1998), and (d) the Kaplan-Baycrest Neurocognitive Assessment (Leach et al, 2000).…”

Section: Usage Of the Clock Drawing Test By Clinicians And Researchermentioning

confidence: 99%

The test of time: a history of clock drawing

Hazan

Frankenburg

Brenkel

et al. 2017

Int J Geriat Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The clock drawing test (CDT) has become one of the most widely used cognitive screening instruments in clinical and research settings. Its effectiveness, acceptability, and quick and easy administration have made it a staple for cognitive screening in dementia and a wide range of brain disorders. Despite a spike in popularity since the 1990s, its origins are relatively unknown. The goal of this review is to chronicle its saga and chart its usage over time. Methods: PsycInfo, Medline, and PubMed literature searches were performed from earliest record to June 2016, in addition to manual cross-referencing of bibliographies, with a focus before 1990. Summary of relevant articles and books up until 1989 is included, as well as clinical applications and surveys that track CDT usage over time. Results: While MacDonald Critchley's well-known textbook from 1953, The Parietal Lobes, is often cited as the first mention of the CDT, its recorded use actually stretches back more than a century to 1915. A review of the literature shows that the CDT began as a test for aphasia-related disorders and constructional apraxia until its entry into contemporary cognitive screening in the 1980s when it primarily became a cognitive screen. Its usage took off in 1989 with over 2000 publications since. Conclusions: Despite a fairly obscure existence for decades, the CDT has emerged as an effective and ideal cognitive screening instrument for a wide range of conditions. Its use continues to increase, and it has been incorporated into several widely used cognitive screening batteries.

show abstract

The Mini-Cog: a cognitive ?vital signs? measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly

Cited by 1,344 publications

References 20 publications

Time that tells: critical clock-drawing errors for dementia screening

Time that tells: critical clock-drawing errors for dementia screening

Effect of Patient- and Medication-Related Factors on Inpatient Medication Reconciliation Errors

The test of time: a history of clock drawing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About