Chapter 3 78 3.4 Discussion In this cross-sectional study, patients with dementia were significant older than those without. There were more females in each group, which is representative of the population referred to old age psychiatry. Age has been shown to be of influence (Rossetti et al., 2011; Freitas et al., 2012; Larouche et al., 2016; Carson, Leach and Murphy, 2018), as MoCA scores decline with aging and can alter the (interpretation of) results. However, age has little unique variance and a correlation of less than 10% (Waldron-Perrine and Axelrod, 2012). An additional ANCOVA sensitivity analysis with age as a covariate still showed significant differences in MoCA scores between the different diagnostic groups in our study. The GDS15, a geriatric depression scale, revealed no differences between the referred groups. This finding underscores again the necessity to be cautious when using a screening tool like the GDS15 in attempting to differentiate between or detect psychiatric causes of cognitive complaints (De Craen, Heeren and Gussekloo, 2003). Our study reproduced the significantly different mean MoCA scores reported in previous literature (mocatest.org, no date; Davis et al., 2015; O’Caoimh, Timmons and Molloy, 2016; Carson, Leach andMurphy, 2018). Our secondary outcome, differentiating patients withMD or MCI from HC, shows comparable properties reported in previous case-control studies (mocatest.org, no date; Gil et al., 2015). But to avoid this spectrum-bias, we studied theMoCA in a cohort of patients referred to old age psychiatry, which more accurately represents the clinical reality. This is illustrated in table 3, where the AUC and specificity drop when the comparison is realistic (NoCI as comparisons) and not fictive (HC as comparisons). One can argue that this bias we underscore, by adding HC, is well-known and its effect on the AUC shown before (O’Caoimh, Timmons and Molloy, 2016). Apparently it is still important to stress out the effect it has on optimum cutoff scores as the case-control study design is still the majority of the MoCA validation studies(Nasreddine et al., 2005; Davis et al., 2015). Clinicians should be careful to use cutoffs based on those studies. Twenty-seven percent of the HC had a MoCA score below 26, compared to 63% of the referred NoCI. The MoCA scores of our NoCI patients match with that of a longitudinal, population based study (n=2653; mean MoCA 23.36, 64% specificity <26) indicating we have a realistic comparison group (Rossetti et al., 2011). Even though there was a wide range of MoCA scores in our group, this occurred in a clinical setting and can be explained by the following. False negative results were found in cases of high educational and/or professional levels or Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) in the dementia group. False positive results occurred due to a lack of motivation and/or attention in depressed, manic or psychotic patients,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw