Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T07:49:04.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Mini-Cog versus the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Clock Drawing Test in daily clinical practice: screening value in a German Memory Clinic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2011

Monika Milian*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Anna-Maria Leiherr
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Guido Straten
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Stephan Müller
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Thomas Leyhe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Geriatric Center at the University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Gerhard W. Eschweiler
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany Geriatric Center at the University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Monika Milian, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. Phone: +49-(0)7071-29 81993; Fax: +49-(0)7071-29 4438. Email: monika.milian@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Get access

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the screening value of the Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test (CDT), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the algorithm MMSE and/or CDT to separate elderly people with dementia from healthy depending on test time, type and severity of dementia, and demographic variables in a German Memory Clinic.

Methods: Data from a heterogeneous patient sample and healthy participants (n = 502) were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 438 patients with dementia, 49.1% of the dementia diagnoses were Alzheimer's dementia and 50.9% were non-Alzheimer's dementia. Sixty-four participants were classified as cognitively unimpaired. The CDT and an extraction of the 3-item recall of the MMSE were used to constitute the Mini-Cog algorithm.

Results: Overall, the Mini-Cog showed significantly higher discriminatory power (86.8%) than the MMSE (72.6% at a cut-off ≤ 24 and 79.2% at ≤ 25, respectively) and CDT (78.1%) (each p < 0.01) and did not perform worse than the algorithm MMSE and/or CDT (each p > 0.05). The specificity of the Mini-Cog (100.0%) was similar to that of the MMSE (100.0% for both cut-offs) and CDT (96.9%) (p = 0.154). For all age and educational groups the Mini-Cog outmatched the CDT and MMSE, and was less affected by education than MMSE and less susceptible for the dementia stage than the CDT.

Conclusion: The Mini-Cog proved to have superior discriminatory power than either CDT or MMSE and is demonstrated to be a valid “short” screening instrument taking 3 to 4 minutes to administer in the geriatric setting.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable