Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reply to: “Diagnostic test accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the detection of post-stroke cognitive impairment under different stages and cutoffs: a systematic review and meta-analysis”

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Shi D, Chen X, Li Z (2018) Diagnostic test accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the detection of post-stroke cognitive impairment under different stages and cutoffs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci 39:705–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V et al (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Demeyere N, Riddoch MJ, Slavkova ED, Bickerton WL, Humphreys GW (2015) The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS): validation of a stroke-specific short cognitive screening tool. Psychol Assess 27(3):883–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mancuso M, Demeyere N, Abbruzzese L et al (2018) Using the Oxford Cognitive Screen to detect cognitive impairment in stroke patients: a comparison with the mini-mental state examination. Front Neurol 9(101):1–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Demeyere N, Riddoch MJ, Slavkova ED, Jones K, Reckless I, Mathieson P, Humphreys GW (2016) Domain-specific versus generalized cognitive screening in acute stroke. J Neurol 263:306–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013). Stroke rehabilitation in adults (Nice Guideline CG162). Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg162

  7. Rudd AG, Bowen A, Young GR, James MA (2017). National clinical guidelines for stroke: 5th edition. Clinical Medicine (Royal College of Physicians, London). Available at: https://www.strokeaudit.org/Guideline/Full-Guideline.aspx

  8. Folsetin MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pendlebury ST, Markwick A, de Jager CA, Zamboni G, Wilcock GK, Rothwell PM (2012) Differences in cognitive profile between TIA, stroke and elderly memory research subjects: a comparison of the MMSE and MoCA. Cerebrovasc Dis 34(1):48–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mioshi E, Dawson K, Mitchell J, Arnold R, Hodges JR (2006) The Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revisided (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 21:1078–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pendlebury ST, Mariz J, Bull L, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM (2012) MoCA, ACE-R, and MMSE versus the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and stroke-Canadian stroke network vascular cognitive impairment harmonization standards neuropsychological battery after TIA and stroke. Stroke 43:464–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pendlebury ST, Klaus SP, Thomson RJ, Mehta Z, Wharton RM, Rothwell PM, for the Oxford Vascular Study (2015) Methodological factors in determining risk of dementia after transient ischemic attack and stroke: (III) applicability of cognitive tests. Stroke 46:3067–3073

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Godefroy O, Yaïche H, Taillia H et al (2018) GRECogVASC study group. Who should undergo a comprehensive cognitive assessment after a stroke? A cognitive risk score. Neurology 91(21):e1979–e1987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zietemann V, Georgakis MK, Dondaine T et al. (2018). Early MoCA predicts long-term cognitive and functional outcome and mortality after stroke. Neurology;91(20):e1838-31850

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6AE, UK

    Elise Milosevich & Nele Demeyere

  2. Centre for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Sarah Pendlebury

Authors
  1. Elise Milosevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Pendlebury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nele Demeyere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elise Milosevich.

Ethics declarations

This “Letter to the Editor” has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration and the authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milosevich, E., Pendlebury, S. & Demeyere, N. Reply to: “Diagnostic test accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the detection of post-stroke cognitive impairment under different stages and cutoffs: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Neurol Sci 40, 1485–1486 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-019-03740-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-019-03740-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation