Defining Mild Cognitive Impairment Criteria

Different criteria for defining MCI in the general population have been proposed, and several have undergone revision.^{6 (link)} MCI criteria by Petersen et al.^{7 (link),8 (link)} require (1) a subjective complaint of cognitive decline by the patient, preferably corroborated by a reliable source, (2) minimal effect of the decline on day-to-day functioning and the absence of dementia, and (3) evidence of cognitive abnormalities that cannot be simply attributed to age. Such evidence can be based solely on clinician judgment, although formal neuropsychological testing is deemed helpful. Specific neuropsychological tests and cut-off scores are not stated. Quantitative measurements of function and activities of daily living are not required. Categorization into single-domain, multiple-domain, amnestic, and nonamnestic subtypes is based on the results of neuropsychological testing. Proposed MCI criteria recently developed by the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association MCI criteria committee^{6 (link)} and the DSM-5 Neurocognitive Disorders Work Group^{9 ,10 (link)} would also allow cognitive decline to be detected by health care providers as an alternative to patient or informant report.

Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol.
The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link: Access Free Full Text.

Litvan I., Goldman J.G., Tröster A.I., Schmand B.A., Weintraub D., Petersen R.C., Mollenhauer B., Adler C.H., Marder K., Williams-Gray C.H., Aarsland D., Kulisevsky J., Rodriguez-Oroz M.C., Burn D.J., Barker R.A, & Emre M. (2012). Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease: Movement Disorder Society Task Force Guidelines. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 27(3), 349-356.

Publication 2012

Abnormalities Cognitive Cognitive decline Dementia Neurocognitive disorders Patient

Corresponding Organization : Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan

Other organizations : Rush University Medical Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, University of Pennsylvania, Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Centers, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Paracelsus Elena Klinik Kassel, University of Göttingen, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York Hospital Queens, University of Cambridge, University of Oslo, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Akershus University Hospital, Hospital de Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Biomedical Research Networking Center on Neurodegenerative Diseases, Ikerbasque, Biogipuzkoa Health Research Institute, Newcastle University, Istanbul University

Top 5 similar protocols

Protocol cited in 448 other protocols

Variable analysis

independent variables

Criteria for defining MCI in the general population

dependent variables

Evidence of cognitive abnormalities that cannot be simply attributed to age
Categorization into single-domain, multiple-domain, amnestic, and nonamnestic subtypes
Detection of cognitive decline by health care providers as an alternative to patient or informant report

control variables

Minimal effect of the decline on day-to-day functioning
Absence of dementia

Annotations

Based on most similar protocols

Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.

As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!