The Persian Version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen (Qmci-Pr): Psychometric Properties among Middle-Aged and Older Iranian Adults

Validation of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen in an American Sample of Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia

OBJECTIVE

Early detection of cognitive impairment is critical for patient outcomes, yet cognitive impairment is under identified in primary care settings largely due to time constraints. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen was developed to address the need for a short cognitive screening instrument (< 5 min) that is sensitive to early cognitive change but has not been validated in the United States (US). The objective of this study was to examine the classification accuracy of the Qmci in participants from two memory specialty (e.g., secondary outpatient) clinics in the US.

METHODS

Participants were 152 older adults: 87 participants were cognitively normal (CN), 48 were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 17 were diagnosed with mild dementia (DEM). Classification accuracy of the Qmci and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) were compared in participants with and without cognitive impairment.

RESULTS

The Qmci demonstrated higher classification accuracy in differentiating CN from cognitively impaired participants (i.e., MCI and DEM) (AUC = 0.82) than the MMSE (AUC = 0.77). The optimal cut-off score for the Qmci was < 67, which achieved a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 80%. The optimal MMSE cut-off score was < 27, which achieved a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 43%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Qmci is a valid cognitive screening instrument for detecting early stages of cognitive impairment in memory clinic samples in the US. Its short administration time and increased specificity for detecting MCI make it an attractive option for use in primary care settings. Further validation of the Qmci is needed, specifically within primary care settings.

Diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity of the German quick mild cognitive impairment screen

BACKGROUND

Early detection of cognitive impairment is among the top research priorities aimed at reducing the global burden of dementia. Currently used screening tools have high sensitivity but lack specificity at their original cut-off, while decreasing the cut-off was repeatedly shown to improve specificity, but at the cost of lower sensitivity. In 2012, a new screening tool was introduced that aims to overcome these limitations - the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci). The original English Qmci has been rigorously validated and demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with both good sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-off value for the German Qmci, and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from healthy older adults (HOA; n = 43) and individuals who have a clinical diagnosis of 'mild neurocognitive disorder' (mNCD; n = 37) with a biomarker supported characterization of the etiology of mNCD of three studies of the 'Brain-IT' project. Using Youden's Index, we calculated the optimal cut-off score to distinguish between HOA and mNCD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy based on the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Reliability (internal consistency) was analyzed by calculating Cronbach's α. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing convergent validity between Qmci-G subdomain scores and reference assessments measuring the same neurocognitive domain.

RESULTS

The optimal cut-off score for the Qmci-G was ≤ 67 (AUC = 0.96). This provided a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 90.7%. The PPV and NPV were 89.5% and 92.9%, respectively. Cronbach's α of the Qmci-G was 0.71 (CI95% [0.65 to 0.78]). The Qmci-G demonstrated good construct validity for subtests measuring learning and memory. Subtests that measure executive functioning and/or visuo-spatial skills showed mixed findings and/or did not correlate as strongly as expected with reference assessments.

CONCLUSION

Our findings corroborate the existing evidence of the Qmci's good diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity. Additionally, the Qmci shows potential in resolving the limitations of commonly used screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. To verify these findings for the Qmci-G, testing in clinical environments and/or primary health care and direct comparisons with standard screening tools utilized in these settings are warranted.

Diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening tools validated for older adults in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening tools validated for older adults in Iran, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and researchers.

METHODS

A comprehensive search in March 2023 across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SID, IranMedex, and IranDoc, enhanced by hand-searching references and Google Scholar, identified cross-sectional studies on cognitive screening in Iranian seniors. We assessed diagnostic accuracy, cognitive domains, and test strengths and weaknesses. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis provided summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals, illustrated in forest plots.

RESULTS

Our review, derived from an initial screening of 38 articles, focused on 17 studies involving 14 cognitive screening tools and participant counts from 60 to 350, mostly from specialized clinics. The MMSE was the only tool examined in at least three studies, prompting a meta-analysis revealing its sensitivity at 0.89 and specificity at 0.77 for dementia detection, albeit amidst significant heterogeneity (I^2 > 80%). ACE-III demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for MCI and dementia, while MoCA's performance was deemed adequate for MCI and excellent for dementia. High bias risk in studies limits interpretation.

CONCLUSION

This review identifies key cognitive tools for dementia and MCI in Iranian older adults, tailored to educational levels for use in primary and specialized care. It emphasizes the need for further validation to enhance diagnostic precision across diverse settings, within a concise framework prioritizing brevity and accuracy for clinical applicability.

Comparison of the Greek Version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Older Adults

Objective: Cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) are essential for everyday practice. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, a short instrument designed to identify mild cognitive impairment, was recently translated into Greek (Qmci-Gr). The present study compared its diagnostic value against the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) screen and examined its optimal cutoffs. Method: We recruited consecutive patients aged ≥55 years that presented with cognitive complaints from two outpatient clinics in Greece. The Qmci-Gr and MoCA were completed by all patients. Furthermore, they were assessed independently with a comprehensive flexible neuropsychological battery to establish a diagnostic classification. Results: In the current study, we assessed a total of 145 patients, with a median age of 70 years; 44 were classified as having Subjective Memory Complaints (SMC) but normal cognition, 32 with MCI and 69 with dementia. The Qmci-Gr had a higher accuracy compared to the MoCA in discriminating MCI from dementia, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 versus 0.75, respectively; however, this finding was marginally significant (p = 0.08). Its accuracy was marginally higher for distinguishing SMC from dementia, AUC of 0.94 versus 0.89 (p = 0.03). However, Qmci-Gr presented a lower accuracy than MoCa in differentiating SMC from MCI, AUC of 0.76 versus 0.94 (p = 0.006). Conclusions: The Qmci-Gr has comparable diagnostic accuracy to the MoCA regarding MCI and dementia groups. Further research, with larger and more diverse samples, may be necessary to ensure generalizability.