Implementing AHRQ Effective Health Care Reviews
Helping Clinicians Make Better Treatment Choices

Brief Cognitive Testing in the Detection and Diagnosis of Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia

Aaron Saguil, MD, MPH,
F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland
Emily Buck, MD,
Madigan Army Medical Center, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

American Family Physician. 2021;103(3):183-185.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

Key Clinical Issue

In adults with suspected cognitive impairment, what is the utility of brief cognitive testing in detecting clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) and distinguishing it from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or normal cognition?

Evidence-Based Answer

The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), list learning memory test, list delayed recall memory test, and the semantic fluency language test have sensitivities and specificities that are 0.80 or greater in distinguishing clinical ATD from normal cognition. The MoCA is the only stand-alone test with sensitivity and specificity greater than 0.90 for this comparison. (Strength of Recommendation [SOR]: C, based on disease-oriented evidence.) Brief cognitive tests are less accurate in distinguishing clinical ATD from MCI compared with distinguishing it from normal cognitive function. (SOR: C, based on disease-oriented evidence.) Brief cognitive testing alone is insufficient to definitively detect or diagnose clinical ATD.1 (SOR: C, based on disease-oriented evidence.)

CLINICAL BOTTOM LINE

Summary of Findings for Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia vs. Normal Cognition for Selected Brief Cognitive Tests and Metrics
Test categoryTest metricNo. of studiesMedian prevalence of clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (range)Median sensitivity (range)Median specificity (range)
Individual stand-alone testsClock drawing totals8 (n = 1,022)0.50 (0.15 to 0.64)0.79 (0.36 to 0.93)0.88 (0.42 to 1.0)
Mini-Mental State Examination total7 (n = 1,724)0.50 (0.15 to 0.71)0.88 (0.56 to 1.0)0.94 (0.59 to 1.0)
Montreal Cognitive Assessment total2 (n = 864)0.71 (0.60 to 0.71)0.94 (0.93 to 0.96)0.94 (0.91 to 1.0)
Brief multidomain batteriesDementia rating scale total2 (n = 507)0.60 (0.50 to 0.71)0.97 (0.96 to 0.97)0.96 (0.92 to 0.99)
MemoryList learning, trials and totals6 (n = 1,784)0.21 (0.11 to 0.50)0.82 (0.35 to 0.96)0.96 (0.73 to 1.0)
List delayed recall and retention5 (n = 937)0.50 (0.16 to 0.50)0.89 (0.62 to 0.96)0.94 (0.76 to 0.98)
Prose recall and retention3 (n = 895)0.40 (0.11 to 0.54)0.77 (0.71 to 0.87)0.87 (0.81 to 0.89)
ExecutiveTrail Making Test part B, completion time2 (n = 457)0.33 (0.16 to 0.50)0.86 (0.85 to 0.87)0.86 (0.83 to 0.88)
LanguageSemantic (category) fluency9 (n = 1,586)0.50 (0.15 to 0.68)0.92 (0.35 to 1.0)0.89 (0.81 to 1.0)
Phonemic (letter) fluency4 (n = 830)0.63 (0.15 to 0.68)0.77 (0.72 to 0.89)0.86 (0.69 to 0.93)
Boston Naming Test total2 (n = 479)0.50 (0.16 to 0.50)0.65 (0.53 to 0.84)0.92 (0.85 to 0.92)
CombinationsWechsler Memory Scale logical memory; Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale digital symbol; Boston Naming Test 602 (n = 302)0.47 (0.44 to 0.50)0.82 (0.68 to 0.95)0.87 (0.74 to 1.0)

Adapted from Fink HA, Hemmy LS, Linskens EJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia: a systematic review. Comparative effectiveness review no. 223. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2015-00008-I.) AHRQ publication no. 20-EHC003. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2020. Accessed June 3, 2020. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Summary_1.pdf

CLINICAL BOTTOM LINE

Summary of Findings for Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia vs. Mild Cognitive Impairment for Selected Cognitive Tests and Metrics
Test categoryTest metricNo. of studiesMedian prevalence of clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (range)Median sensitivity (range)Median specificity (range)
Individual stand-alone testsCLOX-1 (draw)2 (n = 150)0.58 (0.50 to 0.65)0.67 (0.58 to 0.76)0.86 (0.72 to 1.0)
Mini-Mental State Examination total2 (n = 604)0.69 (0.61 to 0.76)0.84 (0.79 to 0.88)0.81 (0.79 to 0.83)
Montreal Cognitive Assessment total3 (n = 1,189)0.72 (0.25 to 0.76)0.79 (0.67 to 0.97)0.79 (0.78 to 0.88)
MemoryList learning, trials and totals2 (n = 139)0.47 (0.47 to 0.65)0.65 (0.35 to 0.91)0.72 (0.66 to 0.90)
MemoryList delayed recall and retention3 (n = 327)0.47 (0.47 to 0.62)0.83 (0.73 to 0.90)0.65 (0.52 to 0.83)

Adapted from Fink HA, Hemmy LS, Linskens EJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia: a systematic review. Comparative effectiveness review no. 223. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2015-00008-I.) AHRQ publication no. 20-EHC003. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2020. Accessed June 3, 2020. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Summary_1.pdf

Practice Pointers

In the United States, 5.8 million people 65 years and older (11.4% of this age group) are estimated to have clinical ATD.2,3 Deaths from stroke and heart disease have decreased over the past two decades while the number of deaths associated with clinical ATD has increased, making it the sixth leading cause of death. Direct costs related to the care of clinical ATD total $305 billion annually, and caregiving by unpaid family members is valued at $244 billion.2 Given the prevalence, burden, and associated costs of clinical ATD, tools that assist in diagnosing the disease may inform care and improve outcomes.

This Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review included 57 English-language studies that used validated cognitive tests for distinguishing clinical ATD from normal cognition. Only studies that used established criteria for diagnosing clinical ATD and that were judged to have a low or medium risk of bias were included. More than 80% of patients in these studies were White, and 60% were women. Most studies were retrospective and used the study cohort to set the level of discrimination between clinical ATD and MCI or normal cognition, as opposed to using prespecified cutoff values.1,4

The authors found that most stand-alone cognitive tests had high sensitivity and specificity for clinical ATD vs. normal cognitive function. The MoCA (two studies, 864 participants) had a sensitivity of 0.94 (range = 0.93 to 0.96) and specificity of 0.94 (range = 0.91 to 1.0) in a cohort with a median clinical ATD prevalence of 71%. The MMSE (seven studies, 1,724 participants) had a sensitivity of 0.88 (range = 0.56 to 1.0) and specificity of 0.94 (range = 0.59 to 1.0) in a cohort with a median clinical ATD prevalence of 50%. Clock drawing tests (eight studies, 1,022 participants) had a sensitivity of 0.79 (range = 0.36 to 0.93) and specificity of 0.88 (range = 0.42 to 1.0) in a cohort with a median clinical ATD prevalence of 50%.1 The MoCA and MMSE are proprietary, but many clock drawing tests are free and can be used as a stand-alone test or as part of other screening tools, such as the Mini-Cog (also free).

Among memory tests, list learning, list delayed recall, and prose recall and retention tests had sensitivities ranging from 0.77 to 0.89 and specificities from 0.87 to 0.96 in cohorts of patients with median clinical ATD prevalence of 21% to 50%. Other tests, such as the Trail Making Test and verbal fluency tests, had similar performance.1

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) recommends assessing for cognitive impairment in individuals concerned about their memory or if their close contacts voice concern. The AAN stresses the use of validated screening tools followed by more comprehensive tools, such as neuropsychological testing, in those who screen positive.5 Although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to support routine screening for dementia or MCI in asymptomatic individuals, it determined that screening instruments are able to detect cognitive impairment in older adults. The USPSTF found that these brief cognitive tests are more accurate in distinguishing dementia from normal cognition than distinguishing MCI from normal cognition. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence that screening and early detection improve clinical decision-making or patient or caregiver outcomes.6

The AAN recommends that physicians caring for individuals with cognitive impairment review medication lists for medications known to cause impairment and discontinue them if possible. Physicians should also prescribe regular exercise, consider cognitive training, and discuss prognosis and long-term planning with patients.5

Editor's Note: Dr. Saguil is a contributing editor for AFP. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) had been freely available and widely disseminated after first being released in 1975. Starting in 2000, its authors (Dr. Folstein and others) began enforcing its copyright and in 2001 arranged for Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) to manage worldwide rights. PAR insists that all users register with their site, complete a four-page permissions request form, and purchase MMSE forms ($99 for 50 forms) and a test manual ($114) [costs as of January 2021]. See https://www.parinc.com/Resources/Permissions-and-licensing. The creators of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) have followed suit by requiring training and certification to administer the test with restricted use starting in 2021. The training is one hour, and the cost is $125 for the initial two years of certification, which will then require renewal. See https://www.mocatest.org/. This commercialization of a cognitive screening test seems antithetical to the advancement of science and the practice of medicine. As long as copyright holders of these tools restrict their use, clinicians should know that there are alternatives to the MMSE and MoCA, including the Saint Louis University Mental Status examination. See https://www.slu.edu/medicine/internal-medicine/geriatric-medicine/aging-successfully/assessment-tools/mental-status-exam.php.—Jay Siwek, MD, Editor Emeritus; Sumi Sexton, MD, Editor-in-Chief

The views expressed in this article are the authors' and do not reflect official policy or position of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Madigan Army Medical Center, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

Address correspondence to Aaron Saguil, MD, MPH, at aaron.saguil@usuhs.edu. Reprints are not available from the authors.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

  1. 1.Fink HA, Hemmy LS, Linskens EJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia: a systematic review. Comparative effectiveness review no. 223. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2015-00008-I.) AHRQ publication no. 20-EHC003. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2020. Accessed June 3, 2020. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Summary_1.pdf
  2. 2.Alzheimer's Association report. 2020 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2020;16(3):391-460.
  3. 3.Administration for Community Living. 2019 profile of older Americans. July 2020. Accessed December 9, 2020. https://acl.gov/aging-and-disability-in-america/data-and-research/profile-older-americans
  4. 4.Hemmy LS, Linskens EJ, Silverman PC, et al. Brief cognitive tests for distinguishing clinical Alzheimer-type dementia from mild cognitive impairment or normal cognition in older adults with suspected cognitive impairment. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(10):678-687.
  5. 5.Petersen RC, Lopez O, Armstrong MJ, et al. Practice guideline update summary: mild cognitive impairment: report of the guideline development, dissemination, and implementation subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90(3):126-135.
  6. 6.Patnode CD, Perdue LA, Rossom RC, et al. Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020;323(8):764-785.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conducts the Effective Health Care Program as part of its mission to produce evidence to improve health care and to make sure the evidence is understood and used. A key clinical question based on the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program systematic review of the literature is presented, followed by an evidence-based answer based on the review. AHRQ’s summary is accompanied by an interpretation by an AFP author that will help guide clinicians in making treatment decisions.

This series is coordinated by Joanna Drowos, DO, MPH, MBA, contributing editor. A collection of Implementing AHRQ Effective Health Care Reviews published in AFP is available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/ahrq.

Copyright © 2026 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. See permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests.