Validez discriminante y concordancia interobservador de 2 métodos de puntuación del test del reloj / Discriminant validity and inter-rater concordance of two scoring systems for the clock test

Objetivos Comparar la validez discriminante y la fiabilidad interobservador de los 2 métodos de corrección del test del reloj más usados en España. Metodología Se han evaluado 2 colecciones de dibujos del reloj obtenidos en un contexto clínico (116 casos; 56,8% mujeres, edad media 73,1±7,7 años) y en una cohorte de voluntarios (2.039 dibujos de 579 sujetos; 59,5% mujeres, edad media 78,3±3,8 años). Todos los sujetos fueron clasificados como sin deterioro cognitivo (DC−) o con deterioro cognitivo (DC+) tras una extensa evaluación clínica y neuropsicológica. Evaluadores expertos han valorado estos dibujos de forma independiente y sin conocimiento del diagnóstico con los métodos de Sunderland y Solomon estandarizados en español por Cacho (rango: 0 a 10) y del Ser (rango: 0 a 7), respectivamente. Se ha calculado la validez discriminante de cada método mediante el área bajo la curva ROC (aROC) en las 2 muestras, y la fiabilidad interobservador mediante el coeficiente de correlación intraclase (CCI) y el coeficiente kappa en la muestra clínica que fue valorada por los 2 evaluadores. Resultados No hay diferencias significativas en la validez discriminante de los métodos de Sunderland y Solomon en ninguna de las muestras (clínica: aROC: 0,73 [IC 95%: 0,64-0,81] y 0,77 [IC 95%: 0,69-0,85], respectivamente, p=0,19; voluntarios: aROC: 0,69 [IC 95%: 0,67-0,71] y 0,72 [IC 95%: 0,69-0,73], respectivamente, p=0,08). Los puntos de corte ≤8 y ≤5 clasifican correctamente al 71 y 73% de la muestra clínica y al 82 y 84% de la muestra de voluntarios, respectivamente. Los 2 métodos tienen una buena concordancia en la muestra clínica (AU)

Objective To compare the discriminant validity and inter-rater reliability of the two scoring systems for the Clock test that are most used in Spain. Methodology Two collections of clock drawings obtained in a clinical context (116 cases; 56.8% women, mean age 73.1±7.7 years) and in a cohort of volunteers (2039 drawings of 579 subjects; 59.5% women, mean age 78.3±3.8 years) have been assessed. All subjects were classified as cognitively normal (CN) or cognitively impaired (CI) after extensive clinical and neuropsychological evaluation. Expert raters have evaluated these drawings independently and without knowledge of the diagnosis using the Sunderland and Solomon systems standardized in Spanish by Cacho (range 0 to 10) and del Ser (range 0 to 7) respectively. The discriminant validity of each method was calculated in the two samples using the area under the ROC curve (aROC), and the inter-rater reliability was calculated in the clinical sample, that was assessed by the two evaluators, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the kappa coefficient. Results There are no significant differences in the discriminant validity of the Sunderland and Solomon systems in any of the samples (clinical: aROC 0.73 [CI95%: 0.64-0.81] and 0.77 [CI95%: 0.69-0.85] respectively, P=.19; volunteers: aROC 0.69 [CI95%: 0.67-0.71] and 0.72 [CI95%: 0.69-0.73] respectively, P=.08). The cut-off points ≤8 and ≤5 correctly classify 71% and 73% of the clinical sample and 82% and 84% of the volunteer sample, respectively. Both systems have good agreement in the clinical sample (Sunderland: ICC 0.90 [CI95%: 0.81-0.93], kappa 0.76 [CI95%: 0.70-0.83]; Solomon: 0.92 [CI95%: 0.88-0.95] and 0.77 [CI95%: 0.71-0.83] respectively), somewhat higher in the second, although the differences are not significant (AU)

[Discriminant validity and inter-rater concordance of two scoring systems for the clock test]. / Validez discriminante y concordancia interobservador de 2 métodos de puntuación del test del reloj.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the discriminant validity and inter-rater reliability of the two scoring systems for the Clock test that are most used in Spain. METHODOLOGY: Two collections of clock drawings obtained in a clinical context (116 cases; 56.8% women, mean age 73.1±7.7 years) and in a cohort of volunteers (2039 drawings of 579 subjects; 59.5% women, mean age 78.3±3.8 years) have been assessed. All subjects were classified as cognitively normal (CN) or cognitively impaired (CI) after extensive clinical and neuropsychological evaluation. Expert raters have evaluated these drawings independently and without knowledge of the diagnosis using the Sunderland and Solomon systems standardized in Spanish by Cacho (range 0 to 10) and del Ser (range 0 to 7) respectively. The discriminant validity of each method was calculated in the two samples using the area under the ROC curve (aROC), and the inter-rater reliability was calculated in the clinical sample, that was assessed by the two evaluators, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: There are no significant differences in the discriminant validity of the Sunderland and Solomon systems in any of the samples (clinical: aROC 0.73 [CI95%: 0.64-0.81] and 0.77 [CI95%: 0.69-0.85] respectively, P=.19; volunteers: aROC 0.69 [CI95%: 0.67-0.71] and 0.72 [CI95%: 0.69-0.73] respectively, P=.08). The cut-off points ≤8 and ≤5 correctly classify 71% and 73% of the clinical sample and 82% and 84% of the volunteer sample, respectively. Both systems have good agreement in the clinical sample (Sunderland: ICC 0.90 [CI95%: 0.81-0.93], kappa 0.76 [CI95%: 0.70-0.83]; Solomon: 0.92 [CI95%: 0.88-0.95] and 0.77 [CI95%: 0.71-0.83] respectively), somewhat higher in the second, although the differences are not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability of these two Clock Test correction systems are similar. Solomon's method, shorter and simpler, may be more advisable in pragmatic terms.

Teste do Desenho do Relógio: dados normativos para idosos / Clock Drawing Test: standard data for older adults / Prueba de Diseño de Reloj: datos normativos para ancianos

Trata-se de um estudo quantitativo, retrospectivo, correlacional e de corte transversal, com objetivo de fornecer dados normativos do TDR para idosos, levando em consideração diferentes faixas etárias e níveis de escolaridade. Duzentos e trinta e cinco foram entrevistados individualmente, distribuídos em cinco grupos etários e quatro níveis de escolaridade. Os instrumentos foram Ficha de Dados Sociodemográficos, Miniexame do Estado Mental (MEEM), Escala de Depressão Geriátrica, versão reduzida (GDS-15), Tarefa de Fluência Verbal Semântica (TFVS) e o TDR. Utilizou-se estatísticas descritivas, correlação de Pearson e análise univariada (one-way ANOVA) com post hoc Scheffe. Os escores do TDR apresentaram associações significativas com os anos de idade, anos de escolaridade, MEEM, TFVS e GDS-15. Houve diferença de desempenho no TDR ao considerarem os grupos por idade. O estudo fornece valores normativos para o TDR em uma amostra de idosos do sul do Brasil que foram influenciados pela idade, escolaridade, sintomatologia depressiva e fluência verbal. (AU)

This was a quantitative, retrospective, correlational, cross-sectional study that aimed to provide normative CDT (Clock-Drawing Test) data for older adults, taking into account different age groups and educational levels. The sample included 235 older adults distributed among five age groups and four levels of education. The instruments were Sociodemographic Data Sheet, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Geriatric Depression Scale reduced version (GDS-15), the Semantic Verbal Fluency Task (TFVS), and the CDT. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation, and univariate analysis (one-way ANOVA) with Scheffe post hoc were used. The CDT scores showed significant associations with age, years of schooling, MMSE, TFVS, and GDS-15. There was a difference in performance in CDT when considering age groups. The present study was able to provide normative values ​​for CDT in a sample of older adults in southern Brazil that ​​were influenced by age, education, depressive symptoms, and verbal fluency. (AU)

Se trata de un estudio cuantitativo, retrospectivo, correlacional y transversal, con el objetivo de aportar datos normativos sobre el TDR para ancianos, teniendo en cuenta diferentes grupos de edad y niveles educativos. La muestra incluyó a 235 ancianos distribuidos en cinco grupos de edad y cuatro niveles de educación. Los instrumentos utilizados fueron Ficha de Datos Sociodemográficos, Mini Examen del Estado Mental (MMSE), Escala de Depresión Geriátrica, versión reducida (GDS-15), Tarea de Fluidez Verbal Semántica (TFVS) y TDR. Se emplearon estadísticas descriptivas, correlación de Pearson y análisis univariante (one-way ANOVA) con post hoc Scheffe. Los puntajes de TDR mostraron asociaciones significativas con la edad, años de escolaridad, MMSE, TFVS y GDS-15. Hubo diferencia en el desempeño en el TDR al considerar los grupos por edad. El presente estudio fue capaz de proporcionar valores normativos para TDR en una muestra de ancianos en el sur de Brasil influenciados por la edad, la escolaridad, los síntomas depresivos y la fluidez verbal. (AU)

Evaluación de la utilidad diagnóstica y validez discriminativa del Test del Reloj y del Mini-Cog en la detección del deterioro cognitivo / Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity of the Clock Drawing and Mini-Cog tests in detecting cognitive impairment

Introducción y objetivos: El Mini-Cog es un test cognitivo muy breve de uso extendido que incluye una tarea de memoria y una evaluación simplificada del Test del Reloj (TdR). No existe una evaluación formal del Mini-Cog en español; nuestro objetivo es analizar la utilidad diagnóstica (UD) del Mini-Cog y del TdR para deterioro cognitivo (DC). Métodos: Estudio transversal en el que se han incluido de forma sistemática todos los sujetos atendidos durante un semestre en una consulta de Neurología. La UD se ha evaluado para DC (incluye sujetos con criterios NIA-AA de Mild Cognitive Impairment o demencia) por medio del área bajo la curva ROC (aROC). Se han calculado los parámetros de sensibilidad (S), especificidad (E) y cocientes de probabilidad positivo y negativo (CP+, CP−) para los distintos puntos de corte. Resultados: Se han incluido 581 sujetos (315 DC), 55,1% mujeres y 27,7% con bajo nivel educativo (< estudios primarios). La UD del Mini-Cog es superior a la del TdR (0,88 ± 0,01 (aROC ± EE) vs 0,84 ± 0,01, p < 0,01); para ambos instrumentos la UD disminuye notablemente en sujetos con bajo nivel educativo (0,74 ± 0,05 y 0,75 ± 0,05, respectivamente). El punto de corte 2/3 del Mini-Cog tiene una S de 0,90 (0,87-0,93) y una E de 0,71 (0,65-0,76) y el 5/6 del TdR una S de 0,77 (0,72-0,81) y una E de 0,80 (0,75-0,85). Conclusiones: En consulta de Neurología, el Mini-Cog tiene una UD para DC aceptable, superior a la del TdR; ninguno de ellos es un instrumento adecuado para ser utilizado en sujetos con bajo nivel educativo. (AU)

Introduction and objectives: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. Results: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC ± sensitivity: 0.88 ± 0.01 vs 0.84 ± 0.01; P < .01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74 ± 0.05 vs 0.75 ± 0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85). Conclusion: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education. (AU)

Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity of the Clock Drawing and Mini-Cog tests in detecting cognitive impairment.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. RESULTS: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC ±â€¯sensitivity: 0.88 ±â€¯0.01 vs 0.84 ±â€¯0.01; P < .01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74 ±â€¯0.05 vs 0.75 ±â€¯0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85). CONCLUSION: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education.

Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity of the Clock Drawing and Mini-Cog tests in detecting cognitive impairment. / Evaluación de la utilidad diagnóstica y validez discriminativa del Test del Reloj y del Mini-Cog en la detección del deterioro cognitivo.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. RESULTS: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC±sensitivity: 0.88±0.01 vs 0.84±0.01; P<.01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74±0.05 vs 0.75±0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95%CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95%CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95%CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95%CI, 0.75-0.85). CONCLUSION: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education.