BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) therapy have an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment and dementia, which are known relevant factors in disease prognosis and therapeutic success, but still lack adequate screening in clinical routine. We evaluated the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for suitability in assessing cognitive performance in HD patients in comparison to the commonly used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a detailed neuropsychological test battery, used as gold standard.Methods43 HD patients and 42 healthy controls with an average age of 58 years, were assessed with the MoCA, the MMSE and a detailed neuropsychological test battery, covering the domains of memory, attention, language, visuospatial and executive functions. Composite scores were created for comparison of cognitive domains and test results were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and linear regression. Cognitive dysfunction was defined using z-score values and predictive values were calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of the MoCA were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.ResultsHD patients performed worse in all cognitive domains, especially in memory recall and executive functions. The MoCA correlated well with the detailed test battery and identified patients with cognitive impairment with a sensitivity of 76.7% and specificity of 78.6% for a cut-off value of ≤24 out of 30 points. In the detailed assessment executive functions accounted significantly for performance in the MoCA. The MMSE only discriminated weakly between groups.ConclusionsThe MoCA represents a suitable cognitive screening tool for hemodialysis patients, demonstrating good sensitivity and specificity levels, and covering executive functions, which appear to play an important role in cognitive performance of HD patients.
ObjectiveThe study objective was to implement two strategies (short emotional stimulus vs announced practical assessment) in the teaching of resuscitation skills in order to evaluate whether one led to superior outcomes.SettingThis study is an educational intervention provided in one German academic university hospital.ParticipantsFirst-yearmedical students (n=271) during the first3 weeks of their studies.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of two groups following a sequence of random numbers: the emotional stimulus group (EG) and the assessment group (AG). In the EG, the intervention included watching an emotionally stimulating video prior to the Basic Life Support (BLS) course. In the AG, a practical assessment of the BLS algorithm was announced and tested within a 2 min simulated cardiac arrest scenario. After the baseline testing, a standardised BLS course was provided. Evaluation points were defined 1 week and 6 months after.Primary outcome measuresCompression depth (CD) and compression rate (CR) were recorded as the primary endpoints for BLS quality.ResultsWithin the study, 137 participants were allocated to the EG and 134 to the AG. 104 participants from EG and 120 from AG were analysed1 week after the intervention, where they reached comparable chest-compression performance without significant differences (CR P=0.49; CD P=0.28). The chest-compression performance improved significantly for the EG (P<0.01) and the AG (P<0.01) while adhering to the current resuscitation guidelines criteria for CD and CR.ConclusionsThere was no statistical difference between both groups’ practical chest-compression-performance. Nevertheless, the 2 min video sequence used in the EG with its low production effort and costs, compared with the expensive assessment approach, provides broad opportunities for applicability in BLS training.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.