Skip to main content

Copyright claims a well-validated cognitive test




A new meta-analysis of brief cognitive tests appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine this week, and I was asked to opine on its significance. Cognitive testing is an important and complex topic already, but this had an unusual but sadly unsurprising twist.

Brief cognitive tests, like the Mini-Cog or MoCA, are relatively simple but powerful tools that can be used in almost any clinical setting as a screening tests for cognitive impairment or dementia. A surgeon might use one at a pre-op visit because cognitive impairment increases the risk of post-op delirium. Or a primary care provider might use one to see if cognitive impairment contributed to a patient's recent falls. For a provider who sees geriatric patients, they are as important as a pocket talker!

The meta-analysis asks if there is any well-validated alternative to the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE). Readers of this blog probably recall why many providers are looking for alternatives to the MMSE - since 2001 it has come under strict copyright enforcement, creating barriers to its ready clinical use. And in 2006, a promising new alternative, the Sweet 16 test, vanished in a haze of copyright controversy, demonstrating that copyright enforcement of the MMSE is adding new barriers to dementia research as well. Many providers have switched to the MoCA or other yet-surviving tests, but the unfortunate reality is that no test had been as widely studied and validated as the MMSE. Where do alternative tests stand now?

Fortunately, the authors found an even dozen potential alternatives with enough studies in the literature to perform meta-analyses, and several were at least as good as the MMSE at detecting dementia or cognitive impairment. We can add the Mini-Cog, MoCA, and ACE-R to our quivers as well validated cognitive screening tools.

Er, actually, scratch the ACE-R. In trying to learn more about it for my commentary I discovered that it has followed the Sweet 16 into oblivion. It had been validated in 12 studies in 12 different countries around the world - work all now wasted.

Now, maybe the ACE-R's Australian authors should have known better. The test includes all of the questions on the MMSE, interspersed among many others that address the MMSE's deficiencies in executive function and sensitivity for mild impairments. But the ACE-R was published in 2000 (and was probably created years before that), back in the "benign neglect" days of the MMSE's copyright. And isn't this how medical research is supposed to work anyway? Iteratively improving on prior work? Building on best practices? Standing on shoulders? Isn't that how the MMSE itself came into existence? Isn't the purpose of copyright to promote the advancement of art and science?

Which test is next? Is the MoCA or SLUMS safe? Have other tests already quietly been disappeared? Would any bright young researcher risk their career making a better cognitive test? Should governments be content with research dollars being wasted? Does copyrighting a medical procedure even make sense? What can we do?

By: John Newman (@GeriSciDoc)

[It was surprisingly hard to find an open access shooting-gallery duck. The beautiful duck above is from the public domain collection at openclipart.org, created by PrinterKiller. With my hand-crafted red and white additions, I hereby designate the modified image as public domain as well.]

Comments

Bruce Scott said…
We can refuse to teach the MMSE. For the combined reasons of it being a poor test and as a response to academic bad faith. Whenever a medical student, resident, or fellow discusses a MMSE result, recommend an alternative. (For me, that's Mini-Cog for a short screen & either MoCA or modified SLUMS if I need a longer instrument.)

We should buy no MMSE forms. We should do no research that involves a MMSE.

If you want to play dirty (like they did), you could consider some or all of the following as well:
1) Buy no other products from PAR.
2) Do not favorably peer review any study that uses the flawed MMSE (and include that specifically as the reason)
3) Do not favorably score any presentation proposal for a conference that uses the flawed MMSE (and include that specifically as the reason)
4) Agitate to have MMSE removed from any EMR system templates.
5) Agigate to have MMSE removed from any nursing home protocols.

There are other options, but they probably are unsuited to discussion on a website one might be viewing at work.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …