COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
VALIDATION STUDY
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Veterans Affairs Saint Louis University Mental Status examination compared with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Short Test of Mental Status.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of the Veterans Affairs Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia according to the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) with that of two other well-known screening instruments, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Short Test of Mental Status (STMS).

DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study.

SETTING: Saint Louis Veterans Affairs Medical Center Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center.

PARTICIPANTS: Veterans aged 60 and older (median 78.5) with a high school education or more (n = 136).

MEASUREMENTS: Participants were administered the SLUMS examination, the MoCA, and the STMS in random order. A blinded test administrator administered the CDR in a separate session. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the SLUMS examination, the MoCA, and the STMS for MCI, dementia, and MCI or dementia. ROC contrasts were used to statistically compare the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the screening tests' ability to detect cognitive dysfunction according to the CDR.

RESULTS: ROC contrasts demonstrated that the AUCs for detecting MCI (SLUMS examination 0.74, MoCA 0.77, STMS 0.77), dementia (SLUMS examination 0.98, MoCA 0.96, STMS 0.97), and MCI or dementia (SLUMS examination 0.82, MoCA 0.83, STMS 0.84) were equivalent. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were similar across measures of MCI, dementia, and MCI or dementia according to the CDR.

CONCLUSION: The SLUMS examination has validity similar to that of the MoCA and STMS for the detection of MCI, dementia, and MCI or dementia according to the CDR.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app