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

Practical Advice for the End of Life: A Podcast with BJ Miller

This week we talk with BJ Miller, hospice and palliative care physician, public speaker, and now author with Shoshana Berger of the book "A Beginner's Guide to the End."

As we note on the podcast, BJ is about as close as we get to a celebrity in Hospice and Palliative Care.  His TED Talk "What Really Matters at the End of Life" has been viewed more than 9 million times.  As we discuss on the Podcast, this has changed BJ's life, and he spends most of his working time engaged in public speaking, being the public "face" of the hospice and palliative care movement.

The book he and Berger wrote is filled to the brim with practical advice.  I mean, nuts and bolts practical advice.  Things like:
How to clean out not only your emotional house but your physical house (turns out there are services for that!)Posting about your illness on social media (should you post to Facebook)What is the difference between a funeral home and mortuaryCan I afford to die?  …

Improving Advance Care Planning for Latinos with Cancer: A Podcast with Fischer and Fink

In this week's GeriPal podcast we talk with Stacy Fischer, MD and Regina Fink, RN, PhD, both from the University of Colorado, about a lay health navigator intervention to improve advance care planning with Latinos with advanced cancer.  The issue of lay health navigators raises several issues that we discuss, including:
What is a lay health navigator?What do they do?  How are they trained?What do lay health navigators offer that specialized palliative care doesn't?  Are they replacing us?What makes the health navigator intervention particularly appropriate for Latinos and rural individuals?  For advance care planning? Eric and I had fun singing in French (yes French, not Spanish, listen to the podcast to learn why).
Enjoy! -@AlexSmithMD




You can also find us onYoutube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher

Transcript

Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: And Alex, I'm really excited about toda…

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 …