上海交通大学学报（医学版）

上海交通大学学报（医学版） >

2021 , Vol. 41 >Issue 12: 1662 - 1667

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2021.12.017

论著 · 临床研究

蒙特利尔认知评估量表在中国社区老人中的应用

  • 夏安琪 ,
  • 李军 ,
  • 岳玲 ,
  • 洪波 ,
  • 严峰 ,
  • 苏宁 ,
  • 肖世富 ,
  • 刘园园 ,
  • 王涛
展开
  • 1.上海交通大学医学院附属精神卫生中心老年精神科，上海 200030
    2.上海交通大学阿尔茨海默病诊治中心，上海 200030
    3.安徽医科大学附属巢湖医院，合肥 238000
夏安琪（1995—），女，住院医师，硕士生；电子信箱：xiaanqi349@foxmail.com
夏安琪（1995—），女，住院医师，硕士生；电子信箱：xiaanqi349@foxmail.com
刘园园，电子信箱：shangeryilyy@163.com. #为共同通信作者。
王涛，电子信箱：wtshhwy@163.com

收稿日期: 2021-07-29

  网络出版日期: 2021-01-28

基金资助

国家科技部科技支撑计划项目(2009BAI77B03);上海市卫生系统优秀人才培养计划（优秀学科带头人）(2017BR054);上海市教育委员会高原学科建设计划(20172029);上海交通大学医学院转化医学协同创新中心合作研究项目(TM201728)

收起

Application of Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale to the elderly in Chinese community

  • An-qi XIA ,
  • Jun LI ,
  • Ling YUE ,
  • Bo HONG ,
  • Feng YAN ,
  • Ning SU ,
  • Shi-fu XIAO ,
  • Yuan-yuan LIU ,
  • Tao WANG
Expand
  • 1.Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Shanghai Mental health center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200030, China
    2.Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
    3.Chaohu Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 238000, China
LIU Yuan-yuan, E-mail: shangeryilyy@163.com. #Co-corresponding authors.
WANG Tao, E-mail: wtshhwy@163.com

Received date: 2021-07-29

  Online published: 2021-01-28

Supported by

China Ministry of Science and Technology Grants(2009BAI77B03);Shanghai Health System Excellent Talent Training Program (Excellent Subject Leader)(2017BR054);Shanghai Municipal Education Commission—Gaofeng Clinical Medicine Grant Support(20172029);Collaborative Innovation Center for Translational Medicine of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Project(TM201728)

Fold

摘要

目的·更新蒙特利尔认知评估量表（Montreal Cognitive Assessment，MoCA）区分中国城市社区正常老人（normal elderly，NE）与轻度认知功能损害（mild cognitive impairment，MCI）老人的最佳分界值，分析分量表得分。方法·采用横断面研究，对来自中国10个城市随机抽样的60岁以上老人采用简明精神状态检查（Mini-Mental State Examination，MMSE）和MoCA（北京版）评定其认知功能。数据采用SPSS 19.0进行分析。结果·共有2 367例NE和553例MCI患者。其中，男性1 319例，女性1 601例，平均年龄为（70.6±7.5）岁，平均受教育年限为（8.7±5.2）年。MCI组和NE组在年龄和教育水平上的差异具有统计学意义（t=12.3，P=0.000；t=-13.5，P=0.000）。女性更易患MCI（χ2＝13.5，P=0.000）。通过对NE组MoCA得分分析，发现男性、高文化程度和低年龄组的MoCA得分较高。命名中的犀牛和骆驼，延迟记忆中的教堂和面孔，交替连线测验及画钟实验中的指针位置难度较大。各分量表得分显示，受试者在定向力和注意力测试中表现较好，而视空间功能、延迟回忆、句子重复和抽象能力得分较低。MoCA区分NE与MCI的最佳分界值为20（敏感度为63.7%，特异度为75.7%），曲线下面积为0.76。结论·MoCA（北京版）对NE与MCI区分度良好，最佳分界值为20。MoCA得分受年龄、性别、受教育程度影响；基于难度分析，可将评估记忆部分词语进行替换（用“手”替换“面孔”，用“工厂”替换“教堂”）。

关键词： 蒙特利尔认知评估量表; 难度分析; 轻度认知功能损害; 分界值

本文引用格式

夏安琪 , 李军 , 岳玲 , 洪波 , 严峰 , 苏宁 , 肖世富 , 刘园园 , 王涛 . 蒙特利尔认知评估量表在中国社区老人中的应用[J]. 上海交通大学学报（医学版）, 2021 , 41(12) : 1662 -1667 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2021.12.017

Abstract

Objective

·To update the cut-off value of the normal elderly (NE) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) elderly in urban areas of China according to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores and analyze the sections of MoCA.

Methods

·A cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the elderly over 60 years old in ten cities of China. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and MoCA (Beijing version) were used to assess cognitive function. Data was statistically analyzed by SPSS 19.0.

Results

·There were 2 367 NE, 553 MCI patients, 1 319 males and 1 601 females, with an average age of (70.6±7.5) years and an average length of education of (8.7±5.2) years. There were significant difference in age and length of education between MCI and NE groups (t=12.3, P=0.000; t=-13.5, P=0.000). Female was more likely to have MCI (χ2＝13.5, P=0.000). By analyzing the score of MoCA of the NE, it was found that the MoCA score of males, high education level and low age group were higher. Rhinoceros and camel in naming, church and face in delayed memory, alternating connection test and pointer position in clock drawing were more difficult. The sections' scores of MoCA showed that the subjects performed better in the orientation and attention tests, while the scores of visuospatial functions, delayed recalling, sentence repetition and abstract ability were lower. The best cut-off value of MoCA was 20 (sensitivity = 63.7%, specificity = 75.7%). The area under the curve was 0.76.

Conclusion

·MoCA (Beijing version) has a good distinction between NE and MCI, and 20 can be used as a cut-off value in MCI subjects screening in urban areas of China. MoCA score is influenced by age, gender and education level. Based on difficulty analysis, some words that evaluate memory could be replaced (replacing “face” with “hand” and replacing “church” with “factory”).

Key words： Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA); difficulty assessment; mild cognitive impairment; cut-off value

参考文献

1 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2005, 53(4):695-699.
2 Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome[J]. Arch Neurol, 1999, 56(3):303-308.
3 Christina Patterson. World Alzheimer report2018. The state of the art of dementia research: new frontiers [EB/OL]. London: Alzheimer's Disease International, 2018 (2018-09-21)[2021-06-20]. .
4 Sherman DS, Mauser J, Nuno M, et al. The efficacy of cognitive intervention in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI): a meta-analysis of outcomes on neuropsychological measures[J]. Neuropsychol Rev, 2017, 27(4):440-484.
5 Lu Y, Liu C, Yu D, et al. Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling Chinese populations aged over 55?years: a meta-analysis and systematic review[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2021, 21(1):10.
6 Moberly AC, Vasil KJ, Wucinich TL, et al. How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?[J]. Laryngoscope, 2018, 128(Suppl 5).DOI:10.1002/lary.27457.
7 Drag LL, Light SN, Langenecker SA, et al. Patterns of frontoparietal activation as a marker for unsuccessful visuospatial processing in healthy aging[J]. Brain Imaging Behav, 2016, 10(3):686-696.
8 Drag LL, Bieliauskas LA. Contemporary review 2009: cognitive aging[J]. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol, 2010, 23(2):75-93.
9 Karrasch M, Myllyniemi A, Latvasalo L, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of an incidental memory modification of the Boston Naming Test (memo-BNT) in differentiating between normal aging and mild Alzheimer's disease[J]. Clin Neuropsychol, 2010, 24(8):1355-1364.
10 Lithfous S, Dufour A, Blanc F, et al. Allocentric but not egocentric orientation is impaired during normal aging: an ERP study[J]. Neuropsychology, 2014, 28(5):761-771.
11 Yeung PY, Wong LLL, Chan CC, et al. Montreal Cognitive Assessment-single cutoff achieves screening purpose[J]. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 2020, 16:2681-2687.
12 孙宇任, 安畅, 何伟, 等. 蒙特利尔认知评估量表北京版在沈阳市社区老年人群中的初步应用[J]. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 2012, 21(10): 948-950.
13 刘忠玲, 朱香玲, 李安民. 北京版蒙特利尔认知评估量表在白银市地区筛查轻度认知功能障碍的分界值[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2019, 39(17): 4271-4274.
14 陈红, 于慧, 孔伶俐, 等. 蒙特利尔认知评估量表北京版在青岛市老年人群中应用的信效度研究[J]. 国际老年医学杂志, 2015, (5): 202-205.
15 杨立新, 唐旋, 周宁, 等. 北京版蒙特利尔认知评估量表在成人OSAHS认知功能评估中的应用及可靠性验证[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2018, 32(1): 58-64.
16 孟晓静, 李黎明, 王俊锋, 等. 北京版蒙特利尔认知评估量表在颅内动脉瘤术后患者认知功能评估中的应用效果[J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2020, 26(23): 3131-3137.
17 董新秀, 胡慧, 王凌, 等. 蒙特利尔认知评估量表在评估轻度认知损害老人中的验证性因素分析[J]. 中华神经科杂志, 2018, 51(12): 966-971.
18 Zhang H, Zhang XN, Zhang HL, et al. Differences in cognitive profiles between traumatic brain injury and stroke: a comparison of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination[J]. Chin J Traumatol, 2016, 19(5):271-274.
19 Lee JY, Dong Woo Lee, Cho SJ, et al. Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment in elderly outpatient clinic: validation of the Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment[J]. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol, 2008, 21(2):104-110.
20 Ozdilek B, Kenangil G. Validation of the Turkish Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA-TR) in patients with Parkinson's disease[J]. Clin Neuropsychol, 2014, 28(2):333-343.
21 O'Driscoll C, Shaikh M. Cross-cultural applicability of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): a systematic review[J]. J Alzheimers Dis, 2017, 58(3):789-801.
22 Ng TP, Feng L, Lim WS, et al. Montreal Cognitive Assessment for screening mild cognitive impairment: variations in test performance and scores by education in Singapore[J]. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2015, 39(3-4):176-185.
23 Yu J, Li J, Huang X. The Beijing version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment as a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment: a community-based study[J]. BMC Psychiatry, 2012, 12:156.
24 Bartos A, Fayette D. Validation of the Czech Montreal Cognitive Assessment for mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer Disease and Czech Norms in 1,552 elderly persons[J]. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2018, 46(5-6):335-345.
25 Borland E, N?gga K, Nilsson PM, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: normative data from a large Swedish population-based cohort[J]. J Alzheimers Dis, 2017, 59(3):893-901.
26 Fujiwara Y, Suzuki H, Yasunaga M, et al. Brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in older Japanese: validation of the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment[J]. Geriatr Gerontol Int, 2010, 10(3):225-232.
27 Wong A, Law LS, Liu W, et al. Montreal Cognitive Assessment: one cutoff never fits all[J]. Stroke, 2015, 46(12):3547-3550.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉