See the published version of this preprint at BMC Neurology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Wan-Li Dong
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1000-3814
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
To determine whether items of the Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-BC) could discriminate among cognitively normal controls (NC), and those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and moderate-severe (AD), as well as their sensitivity and specificity.Methods
MCI (n=456), mild AD (n=502) and moderate-severe AD (n=102) patients were recruited from the memory clinic, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China. NC (n=329) were recruited from health checkup outpatients. Five MoCA-BC item scores were collected in interviews.Results
The MoCA-BC orientation test had high sensitivity and specificity for discrimination among MCI, mild AD and moderate-severe AD. The delayed recall memory test had high sensitivity and specificity for MCI screening. The verbal fluency test was efficient for detecting MCI and differentiating AD severity.Conclusions
Various items of the MoCA-BC can identify MCI patients early and identify the severity of dementia.
Keywords
mild cognitive impairment, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Alzheimer’s disease
Figure 1
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Neurology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 24 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned
On 23 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 22 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 22 Oct, 2019
Version 4
Posted 22 Oct, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Oct, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Oct, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 06 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 27 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 26 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 26 Sep, 2019
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 20 Sep, 2019
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 Sep, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 12 Sep, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 11 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 09 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 08 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 08 Sep, 2019
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 18 Aug, 2019
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Aug, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Aug, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 24 Jul, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Jul, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jul, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 18 Jun, 2019
Editor invited
On 12 Jun, 2019
Editor assigned
On 12 Jun, 2019
First submitted
On 06 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Neurology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Neurology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Wan-Li Dong
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1000-3814
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Neurology.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 24 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned
On 23 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 22 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 22 Oct, 2019
Version 4
Posted 22 Oct, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Oct, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Oct, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 06 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 27 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 26 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 26 Sep, 2019
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 20 Sep, 2019
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 20 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 12 Sep, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 12 Sep, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 11 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 09 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 08 Sep, 2019
Editor invited
On 08 Sep, 2019
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 18 Aug, 2019
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 18 Aug, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Aug, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 24 Jul, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Jul, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jul, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 18 Jun, 2019
Editor invited
On 12 Jun, 2019
Editor assigned
On 12 Jun, 2019
First submitted
On 06 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Neurology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Neurology.
Background
To determine whether items of the Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-BC) could discriminate among cognitively normal controls (NC), and those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and moderate-severe (AD), as well as their sensitivity and specificity.Methods
MCI (n=456), mild AD (n=502) and moderate-severe AD (n=102) patients were recruited from the memory clinic, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai, China. NC (n=329) were recruited from health checkup outpatients. Five MoCA-BC item scores were collected in interviews.Results
The MoCA-BC orientation test had high sensitivity and specificity for discrimination among MCI, mild AD and moderate-severe AD. The delayed recall memory test had high sensitivity and specificity for MCI screening. The verbal fluency test was efficient for detecting MCI and differentiating AD severity.Conclusions
Various items of the MoCA-BC can identify MCI patients early and identify the severity of dementia.
Figure 1
Loading...