Buscar en
Neurología (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Neurología (English Edition) Should the Mini-Mental State Examination be retired?
Journal Information
Vol. 29. Issue 8.
Pages 473-481 (October 2014)
Vol. 29. Issue 8.
Pages 473-481 (October 2014)
Review article
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrleng.2013.07.005
Full text access
Should the Mini-Mental State Examination be retired?
¿Es hora de jubilar al Mini-Mental?
C. Carnero-Pardoa,b
a Unidad de Neurología Cognitivo-Conductual, Servicio de Neurología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
b FIDYAN Neurocenter, Granada, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Full Text
Download PDF
Figures (1)
Tables (2)
Table 1. Qualities and characteristics of the ideal short cognitive test.
Table 2. Characteristics of new short cognitive tests.
Show moreShow less

Short cognitive tests are routinely used in clinical practice to detect and screen for cognitive impairment and dementia. These cognitive tests should meet minimum criteria for both applicability and psychometric qualities.


The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most frequently applied short cognitive test, and the article introducing it remains a milestone in the history of medicine. Its main advantages are its widespread use and the extensive empirical evidence that supports it. However, the MMSE has important shortcomings, including lack of standardisation, its lack of suitability for illiterate subjects, the considerable effect of socio-educational variables on results, and its limited effectiveness for detecting cognitive impairment. Lastly, since the test is copyright-protected, using it is necessarily either costly or fraudulent. Newer available instruments do not share these shortcomings and have demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy for detecting cognitive impairment and dementia, as well as being more cost-effective than the MMSE.


It is time to acknowledge the MMSE's important role in the history of medicine and grant it a deserved and honourable retirement. Its place will be taken by more effective instruments that require less time, are user-friendly and free of charge, can be applied to all individuals, and yield more equitable outcomes.

Screening test
Short cognitive test
Cognitive impairment
Abbreviated cognitive evaluation

Los test cognitivos breves (TCB) son instrumentos de uso habitual en la práctica clínica para la detección y el cribado del deterioro cognitivo y demencia. Los TCB deben reunir unas características de aplicabilidad y psicométricas mínimas.


El Mini-Mental es el TCB más utilizado y el artículo en el que se describe es un hito en la historia de la Medicina. Su principal ventaja es la amplia difusión de su uso y el extenso soporte empírico que la apoya. No obstante, el Mini-Mental tiene numerosas e importantes limitaciones, fundamentalmente la falta de estandarización, el no poder ser aplicado a analfabetos, la gran influencia en sus resultados de las variables socioeducativas y la discreta utilidad para la detección de DC; además, este instrumento está protegido por copyright por lo que su uso es gravoso o fraudulento. En la actualidad, hay TCB disponibles que no cuentan con estas limitaciones y que han mostrado una mayor utilidad diagnóstica e incluso un mayor coste-efectividad que el Mini-Mental en la detección de deterioro cognitivo y demencia.


Es hora de reconocerle al Mini-Mental el importante papel que ha desempeñado en la historia de la Medicina y concederle una merecida y honrosa jubilación, dando paso a instrumentos más breves, fáciles y baratos, que puedan ser aplicados libremente a todos los individuos y que sean más eficientes y justos.

Palabras clave:
Test de cribado
Test cognitivos breves
Deterioro cognitivo
Evaluación cognitiva abreviada
Full Text

Short cognitive tests (SCTs) are instruments used frequently and routinely in clinical practice to detect and screen for patients with cognitive impairment (CI) or dementia (DEM), but this is not their only function. They are also used for follow-up and to assess the patient's response to treatment.1 In any case, rather than being diagnostic tools, they are merely ‘cognitive thermometers’ or ‘brain stethoscopes’,2 that is, another clinical evaluation resource that lets doctors assess cognitive function rapidly. They also help physicians find alarm signs that call for a more detailed cognitive evaluation.

Characteristics and conditions of short cognitive tests

The ideal SCT1 should present a specific set of characteristics (Table 1). Of these, the most crucial is short administration time, a subjective concept that depends on the setting in which the test is used. In a specialist clinic, an administration time of 10minutes may be acceptable whereas in a primary care consultation, an SCT requiring more than 5minutes would be too long considering the mean length of consultations in most European countries.3 SCTs should also require minimal instrument use and be straightforward and easy to administer and score. Assessment should be direct, objective and unequivocal,4 with no need for complex instructions, devices, tables, or calculations. SCTs should also be acceptable, user friendly and ecologically valid,5 meaning that they should not result in any discomfort, refusal, or distress on the part of the patient being assessed. Their scope should be limited to responses or actions related to the patient's daily life. A good SCT should be applicable to all and allow physicians to evaluate all subjects, regardless of their personal traits, skills, or sociodemographic, ethnic, or cultural characteristics. Other qualities to consider include cultural adaptability6 and flexibility, which would make tests easier to use in different geographical and language settings, and different evaluation circumstances (at home, the doctor's office, or a hospital). Finally, the ideal SCT should be free to use6 and not subject to patent or copyright restrictions, and inexpensive7 in terms of administration and the cost of materials or expendables.

Table 1.

Qualities and characteristics of the ideal short cognitive test.

Characteristics  Psychometric properties  Other 
Short  Valid  Normative studies available 
PC: <5min  Reliable  Validated for CI 
SC: <10min  Responsive  Being validated to the setting in which it is administered (care setting, geographical place) 
Easy and simple  No ceiling/floor effect  Able to evaluate several cognitive domains (memory, executive function, etc.) 
Suitable for illiterate subjects  No educational bias  Suggests clinical or diagnostic profiles (amnestic, executive dysfunction, etc.) 
No paper and pencil needed     
Ecologically valid     
Culturally adaptable     
Free of charge     

SC: Specialist hospital care; PC: primary care; CI: cognitive impairment.

Furthermore, an SCT meeting all the usability requirements mentioned above would still be insufficient if it lacked the minimum psychometric qualities, namely validity and reliability. There are many types of validity. Criterion validity is usually measured by calculating sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP), although this is probably the least appropriate formula as sensitivity and specificity values have many limitations. They depend on prevalence, and SE is calculated using only affected patients and SP, unaffected patients. In any case, a good SCT should present SE and SP values greater than 0.80. A more pragmatic way to measure criterion validity is discriminability, which measures an instrument's ability to differentiate healthy subjects from affected ones. This measurement can be estimated in a global way using the area under the ROC curve, and in a specific way for a certain cut-off point by measuring diagnostic agreement (Kappa index) or correct classification rate. Values are considered acceptable when they are equal to or higher than 0.70 or 0.80, respectively. Another essential aspect of an SCT is test-retest and interrater reliability. Both types are measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and values equal to or higher than 0.80 should be considered acceptable. Other desirable psychometric characteristics are responsiveness, lack of floor and ceiling effects,4 and delivery of results that are free from biases and influences derived from demographic, educational, and cultural variables.4–6,8,9

Additional qualities that support the value of an SCT are presence of normative studies7,9 and specific validation studies performed in the geographical and care setting in which the test is applied, especially population and primary care studies.6,10 From the clinical point of view, the SCT should be specifically validated for CI5,8 and not only for DEM, since in clinical practice it is more important to detect and study CI than just DEM.11 Finally, SCT should permit physicians to evaluate multiple cognitive domains, including episodic memory and executive function at the very least.5 Their results should suggest an impairment profile indicating concrete aetiologies (amnestic profile, executive dysfunction profile, etc.).4


There are countless SCTs and it is difficult to identify one that is able to fulfil the wide array of qualities that the ideal SCT should include. Without entering into its characteristics, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)12 is unquestionably the most frequently used SCT.

Mini-Mental State Examination

The MMSE was originally designed and created to systematically and quantitatively evaluate and describe the mental state of hospitalised psychiatric patients and to monitor any changes in this state.13 The MMSE takes between 7 and 10minutes to complete and contains items that assess orientation, registration, attention and calculation, recall, language, repetition, reading, writing, comprehension of commands, and drawing. Scores range between 0 and 30 points. It has no original items; according to its author, “I included those items that had been clinically useful to me and that could be scored with little interpretation”.14 Some of those items had already been included in other instruments (for example, the Blessed scale15).

The MMSE has been translated into more than 50 languages and we also find a wide variety of versions which can be adapted to fit very diverse testing conditions (blind patients, etc.). Different adapted versions are available in Spain,16,17 and the most popular form is named MiniExamen Cognoscitivo.18 There have been several normative population studies19,20 and a telephone interview version has been validated recently.21

The original article on the MMSE 12 is probably the most frequently cited reference in health science literature,22 with a total of 29057 citations as of 31 December 2012 (Fig. 1) (Journal Citation Reports®). This places the article far ahead of such legendary articles in the history of medicine as Watson and Crick's description of the structure of DNA (4705 citations)23 or Prusiner's article describing prions (2641 citations).24 Due to its diffusion and popularity, MMSE is used as an SCT; as a result, it also serves for patient classification,25 definition of inclusion criteria in clinical studies and trials, and even for defining the criteria and limits on access to treatment and social and healthcare resources.26 This last issue is very controversial and has been subject to extensive criticism and even legal action.

Figure 1.

Cumulative citations of MMSE in PubMed.


The MMSE is an instrument recommended by the main clinical practice guidelines (for example, those published by the AAN,27 NICE,28 or Canadian and Spanish guidelines29,30). At present, it is routinely used by most old-age psychiatrists in the USA and Canada31 and by more than 90% of the neurologists in England.32 The first one to be surprised by the success and diffusion of the MMSE was the author himself, who acknowledged that “It continues to amaze us that the particular combination of items in the MMS, conceived in one night, is so useful to clinicians and epidemiologists in many countries”.14

Do the characteristics and qualities of the MMSE justify its universal and undisputed use? Does the MMSE satisfy all the needs that an SCT should cover?

Advantages and disadvantages of the MMSE

The main advantage of MMSE is its widespread use and the large amount of available data, which makes it easier to find standards for comparison in a wide variety of settings and circumstances. MMSE is a relatively user-friendly instrument that can be administered and evaluated by non-qualified personnel and it is taught in most academic institutions.33 Its structure, administration process, and interpretation are therefore almost universally understood, which has facilitated its becoming implicitly accepted as a measurement unit and benchmark for evaluating CI and DEM severity. The MMSE structure ensures the evaluation of several cognitive domains34 and its scoring system has been assimilated as a measure of global cognitive functioning. This makes it easier to compare different studies and subjects, and also to follow up on and assess response to treatment.

Aside from these unquestionable advantages, the MMSE also possesses many significant limitations and weaknesses. These have become much more apparent as increasing demand has been placed on SCT and more instruments able to satisfy those requirements have been created.

Structural problems

The MMSE was not specifically created to screen for DEM. This explains why most of its scoring items are related to orientation (10 points), and language (8 points); only 3 of its 30 points assess memory. Memory is the main cognitive domain to be affected in early stages of the most frequent types of DEM. Memory impairment has been a requirement for all diagnostic criteria for CI and DEM published to date. Executive functions are also under-represented and the MMSE therefore shows low sensitivity to frontal lobe dysfunction. This test contains several items that do not increase the discriminant ability of the battery, especially in cases of mild CI or DEM. The full version of MMSE is no more accurate than a selected array of its items or one of its short forms.35–37 The most discriminatory items for initial stages of impairment, and therefore the most useful for screening purposes, are recall and time orientation.38

Lack of a standard administration procedure is a long-recognised problem39 that seriously affects reliability.32 In this regard, the most relevant point, although not the only one, is the words used in the recall task.32 The words to be repeated are not specified by the original instructions12 and they are chosen by the examiner. This is a significant disadvantage since word recall is sensitive to the words used and it is influenced by traits such as frequency of use, semantic category, concept specificity, phonetic difficulty, number of syllables, imaginability, or familiarity. As a result, some words are recalled more easily than others.40 Other items that vary are the drawings used, the sentence to be repeated, the method of performing the calculation, and whether or not the calculation task is replaced with backward spelling.

One important limitation of MMSE is that it cannot be administered to illiterate subjects as 2 of its items involve reading and writing. Another limitation is the inclusion of a task requiring paper and pencil (copying a drawing). This is not due to the difficulty of completing this task, but because tasks involving paper and pencil, although theoretically accessible to illiterate or undereducated subjects, may cause reactions of aversion and rejection in this group of patients who will consequently perform poorly. Illiteracy, far from being eradicated in our society, remains a global problem; more than 750 million illiterate people were counted in 2010.41 This situation is not limited to underdeveloped countries and is even present in the most developed ones. For example, it is estimated that up to 3% of the adult population in the USA, or about 7 million people, is illiterate.42 In Spain, due to the historical circumstances of the past century, the illiteracy rate in people older than 65 years is very high (214 per 1000 inhabitants).43 We should also consider the emergence of another type of relative illiteracy whose frequency is increasing. Deriving from migration and tourism, this type of illiteracy describes sectors of the population that are literate in their mother tongue but unable to read or write in the language of the host country. For this reason, these people cannot be evaluated with instruments in that country's language. In the USA, 2% of the adult population, some 4 million people, are affected by these language barriers.44 On the other hand, we should not forget that rates of CI and DEM will increase the most in developing countries, where illiteracy rates are higher.45 As a result, we need instruments that do not require patients to be able to read or write and eschew all paper and pencil tasks. Tests should also be easy to administer to illiterate subjects. The aim of all of the above is to obtain assessments of entire populations by means of the same user-friendly instruments.

Psychometric problems

Results from the only meta-analysis available on the diagnostic accuracy of the MMSE in DEM screening,46 which includes 34 quality studies, show a low diagnostic accuracy for DEM. These results were found in both specialist hospital settings (memory clinics) where prevalence is high (SE: 79.8%; SP: 81.3%), and non-clinical community settings (SE: 85.1%; SP: 85.5%) or primary care settings (SE: 78.4%; SP: 87.8%) in which prevalence is low. The number of studies analysing diagnostic accuracy in CI is limited and most have been conducted in specialist hospital settings. Results from 5 studies included in that meta-analysis46 show that its diagnostic accuracy is very limited (SE: 62.7%; SP: 63.3%). In Spain, 4 studies that analyse diagnostic accuracy of MMSE in CI have recently been conducted. Results have exceeded the discrete level in both primary care settings47,48 and in specialist hospital settings.49,50

One additional problem is the significant educational bias of this instrument, which delivers scores that are strongly associated with educational level. Subjects with higher educational levels systematically obtain higher scores than those with lower levels. This effect explains the MMSE's low sensitivity in subjects with a high educational level and in subjects with DEM with normal to high scores.51 MMSE also has poor specificity in subjects with low educational levels. Thus, in a study conducted in Rochester52 among subjects with 16 or more years of education, and using the recommended cut-off point (23/24), SE was only 66% for DEM and 45% for CI. In contrast, a study performed in a Spanish rural area53 with the same cut-off point found that SP was 0% for DEM among illiterate subjects.

Some authors have suggested mitigating this problem by adjusting or correcting scores.16 This proposal, aside from being ineffective,48,54 has been criticised by other authors from a logical point of view, and not without reason. Critics argue that adjusting variables with a causal link to DEM, such as educational level, will significantly decrease validity by eliminating the validity effect55 and leading to information loss.56 Other authors propose using different cut-off points for different educational levels.53,56 Finally, others consider that no modifications can improve the global diagnostic accuracy of raw, unadjusted MMSE scores48,54 and that the true problem resides in the instrument itself. Increasing numbers of authors believe that MMSE is not an adequate instrument for use in settings with low educational levels, especially when screening for mild CI or DEM.47,48,54,57–59

Other disadvantages

Originally, the MMSE could be used free of charge, and according to its author, this could be one of the main reasons for its popularity: “One possible reason for its popularity is that it is free”.14 The authors of the MMSE did not contemplate changing that situation (“When discussing the possibility of copyright, McHugh said, ‘That would be like copyrighting the Babinski sign”’14). However, Psychological Assessment Resources® purchased the MMSE international copyright in 2001. Since then, the company has administered the rights and delegates them, for example, to TEA Ediciones SA for Spain and Latin America. From that date on, using the MMSE requires either authorisation or payment (approximately 1 euro/test), meaning that its use is either costly or fraudulent.

These circumstances have given rise to a multitude of legitimate complaints, mainly in places in which defence of and respect for copyrights is an established social value.13,33,60,61 On the other hand, this social value has barely had an impact on other countries, including Spain, and consequently, there have been no modifications to how the instrument is used. This situation will surely evolve in the future.

Lastly, we should also highlight the implications derived from using the MMSE score as a criterion for participating in clinical trials or receiving healthcare or social benefits. Such restrictions limit access to clinical trials for subjects with lower educational levels since they systematically obtain lower scores, and access for illiterate subjects becomes impossible. This situation would become even worse if differential access arising from the MMSE educational bias were to limit access to treatment and healthcare benefits, as this runs counter to the ideals of equality defended by more advanced healthcare systems.

New short cognitive tests

Hundreds of instruments have been developed during the last few years with the aim of meeting the requirements of the ideal SCT and improving on the results of the MMSE, the current instrument of reference. Table 2 summarises the characteristics of some of these instruments. Providing detailed descriptions of these instruments falls outside of the scope of our study, but excellent reviews are available that list their characteristics and qualities and cite available evidence supporting their use.5,10,38,62–67 In general, 2 different lines of development can be observed. The first is directed towards obtaining a more valid instrument with a better diagnostic performance; the second is directed at creating easier and faster instruments.

Table 2.

Characteristics of new short cognitive tests.

Time  Test  Structure  Instruments  Paper and pencil  Suitable for illiterate population  Effect of educational level 
<5min  Mini-Cog  Multi-domain  –  Yes  Yes  Yes 
  MIS  Single-domain  No  No  Yes 
  Fototest  Multi-domain  No  Yes  No 
5-10min  MMSE  Multi-domain  RS, P  Yes  No  Yes 
  M@T  Single-domain  RS  No  Yes  Yes 
  Eurotest  Multi-domain  RS, C  No  Yes  No 
10-15min  RUDAS  Multi-domain  RS, P  Yes  Yes  Yes 
  7M T  Multi-domain  RS, Ps, SS  Yes  Yes  Yes 
>15min  ACE  Multi-domain  RS, Ps  Yes  Yes  Yes 
  MoCA  Multi-domain  RS, P  Yes  Yes  Yes 

ACE: Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination; RS: record sheet; Instr: instruments, materials needed for testing; P: picture; Ps: different pictures; MIS: Memory Impairment Screen. MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; C: coins; SS: score sheet; M@T: memory alteration test; 7MT: 7 Minute Screen.

Instruments in the first group are developed for use in specialist hospital settings. They require more time to administer and they are generally longer and more complex than the MMSE. These tests facilitate diagnosis of CI and entities in which executive dysfunction and frontotemporal and frontal-subcortical profiles predominate. The most widely distributed tests of this type are the 7 Minute Screen,68 Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination,69 and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.70 All are multi-domain instruments that require more than 10minutes to complete and include paper and pencil tasks. All show an educational bias. Each of the above instruments shows a higher diagnostic accuracy than the MMSE, especially in screening for CI or types of DEM other than Alzheimer disease.71,72

Mini-Cog73 and Fototest74 are two well-known examples of the second line of development that creates simple and short instruments for use in primary care settings and situations with strict time limits. Mini-Cog uses a 3-item recall test for memory and a simplified version of the clock-drawing test. Although it only requires 2 to 3minutes, some studies show that its diagnostic utility is similar to that of MMSE.75 However, a study performed in Spain did not show good results for CI screening in primary care settings,76 probably due to the instrument being inadequate for subjects with low educational levels.77 Fototest is a very short multi-domain instrument (<3min) that is suitable for illiterate subjects and does not show an educational bias. It is more cost-effective and efficient than MMSE as a means of screening for DEM and CI in primary care settings.54 It performs similarly to other instruments with longer administration times that are also suitable for illiterate subjects.78

Instruments adapted for specific conditions have also been designed. Examples include the M@T79 and the MIS,80 tests that are especially useful for detecting amnestic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease since they assess memory exclusively. Other instruments such as Eurotest81 or RUDAS,82 have been specifically designed for testing illiterate subjects in multi-cultural environments.


SCTs, indispensable and essential tools in clinical practice, must fulfil minimum psychometric and applicability requirements. MMSE, currently the most widely used SCT, presents several significant limitations. It cannot be used with illiterate subjects, scores are heavily influenced by educational level, its utility for CI screening is reduced, and it is not freely available.

At present, some instruments are available free of charge that lack these limitations and have demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy and even better efficiency than the MMSE in direct comparison.54

The history of medicine is full of examples of excellent diagnostic tools that have been naturally replaced by newly developed ones providing better results. For example, the rigid stethoscope was replaced by the flexible phonendoscope, and the mercury thermometer fell out of use with the arrival of the digital thermometer. Therefore, it may now be time to acknowledge the MMSE's important place in the history of medicine and grant it a well-deserved retirement. This will pave the way for shorter, more user-friendly, inexpensive instruments that are more efficient and equitable and can be freely administered to all patients.

Conflict of interest

C. Carnero-Pardo is the author of Fototest and Eurotest.


We would like to thank J. Maestre Moreno and J. Olazarán Rodríguez for reviewing a draft of the article and providing useful comments and suggestions.

C. Carnero Pardo.
Los test cognitivos breves. La circunvalación de hipocampo.
D. O’Neill.
Brain stethoscopes: the use and abuse of brief mental status schedules.
Postgrad Med J, 69 (1993), pp. 599-601
M. Deveugele, A. Derese, A. van den Brink-Muinen, J. Bensing, J. De Maeseneer.
Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries.
BMJ, 325 (2002), pp. 472
C. Nicholl.
Diagnosis of dementia.
BMJ, 338 (2009), pp. b1176
W.J. Lorentz, J.M. Scanlan, S. Borson.
Brief screening tests for dementia.
Can J Psychiatry, 47 (2002), pp. 723-733
C.B. Cordell, S. Borson, M. Boustani, J. Chodosh, D. Reuben, J. Verghese, et al.
Alzheimer's Association recommendations for operationalizing the detection of cognitive impairment during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit in a primary care setting.
Alzheimers Dement, 9 (2013), pp. 141-150
J. Peña-Casanova, A. Monllau, N. Gramunt Fombuena.
La psicometría de las demencias a debate.
Neurologia, 22 (2007), pp. 301-311
I. Contador, B. Fernández-Calvo, F. Ramos, E. Tapias-Merino, F. Bermejo-Pareja.
El cribado de la demencia en atención primaria. Revisión crítica.
Rev Neurol, 51 (2010), pp. 677-686
A. Villarejo, V. Puertas-Martin.
Utilidad de los test breves en el cribado de demencia.
Neurologia, 26 (2011), pp. 425-433
H. Brodaty, L.F. Low, L. Gibson, K. Burns.
What is the best dementia screening instrument for general practitioners to use.
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 14 (2006), pp. 391-400
J.W. Ashford, S. Borson.
Primary care screening for dementia and mild cognitive impairment.
JAMA, 299 (2008), pp. 1132-1133
M.F. Folstein, S.E. Folstein, P.R. McHugh.
Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.
J Psychiatr Res, 12 (1975), pp. 189-198
R.E. Nieuwenhuis-Mark.
The death knoll for the MMSE: has it outlived its purpose?.
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol, 23 (2010), pp. 151-157
M. Folstein.
The birth of the MMS.
Curr Contents, 2 (1990), pp. 18
G. Blessed, B.E. Tomlinson, M. Roth.
The association between quantitative measures of dementia and of senile change in the cerebral grey matter of elderly subjects.
Br J Psychiatry, 114 (1968), pp. 797-811
R. Blesa, M. Pujol, M. Aguilar, P. Santacruz, I. Bertran-Serra, G. Hernandez, et al.
Clinical validity of the “Mini-Mental State” for Spanish speaking communities.
Neuropsychologia, 39 (2001), pp. 1150-1157
G. Prieto, I. Contador, E. Tapias-Merino, A.J. Mitchell, F. Bermejo-Pareja.
The Mini-Mental-37 test for dementia screening in the Spanish population: an analysis using the Rasch Model.
Clin Neuropsychol, 26 (2012), pp. 1003-1018
A. Lobo, J. Ezquerra, F. Gómez Burgada, J.M. Sala, A. Seva Díaz.
El miniexamen cognoscitivo (un test sencillo, práctico, para detectar alteraciones intelectuales en pacientes médicos).
Actas Luso Esp Neurol Psiquiatr Cienc Afines, 7 (1979), pp. 189-202
J.M. Manubens, P. Martínez-Lage, J.M. Martínez-Lage, R. Larumbe, J. Muruzabal, M.A. Martinez-Gonzalez, et al.
Variación de las puntuaciones en el Mini-Mental-State con la edad y el nivel educativo. Datos normalizados en la población mayor de 70 años de Pamplona.
Neurologia, 13 (1998), pp. 111-119
T. Del Ser Quijano, M.J. García de Yébenes, F. Sánchez Sánchez, B. Frades Payo, A. Rodriguez Laso, M.P. Bartolome Martinez, et al.
Evaluación cognitiva del anciano. Datos normativos de una muestra poblacional española de más de 70 años.
Med Clin (Barc), 122 (2004), pp. 727-740
J. Garre-Olmo, C. Lax-Pericall, O. Turro-Garriga, O. Soler-Cors, S. Monserrat-Vila, J. Vilalta-Franch, et al.
Adaptación y validez convergente de una versión telefónica del Mini-Mental State Examination.
Med Clin (Barc), 131 (2008), pp. 89-95
F.M. Nilsson.
Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) —probably one of the most cited papers in health science.
Acta Psychiatr Scand, 116 (2007), pp. 156-157
J.D. Watson, F.H. Crick.
Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid.
Nature, 171 (1953), pp. 737-738
S.B. Prusiner.
Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie.
Science, 216 (1982), pp. 136-144
L. Han, M. Cole, F. Bellavance, J. McCusker, F. Primeau.
Tracking cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease using the mini-mental state examination: a meta-analysis.
Int Psychogeriatr, 12 (2000), pp. 231-247
National Institute for Clinical Excelence.
Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 111).
NICE technology appraisal guidance 217. London, (2011),
R.C. Petersen, J.C. Stevens, M. Ganguli, E.G. Tangalos, J.L. Cummings, S.T. DeKosky.
Practice parameter: early detection of dementia: mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurology, 56 (2001), pp. 1133-1142
National Collaboratin Centre for Mental Health.
Dementia. A NICE-SCIE guideline on supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. National Clinical Practice Guideline Number 42: the British Psychological Society & The Royal College of Psychiatrists.
H.H. Feldman, C. Jacova, A. Robillard, A. Garcia, T. Chow, M. Borrie, et al.
Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: 2. Diagnosis.
CMAJ, 178 (2008), pp. 825-836
Grupo de trabajo de la Guía de Práctica Clínica sobre la atención integral a las personas con enfermedad de Alzheimer y otras demencias. Guía de Práctica Clínica sobre la atención integral a las personas con enfermedad de Alzheimer y otras demencias.
Plan de Calidad para el Sistema Nacional de Salud del Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad, Agència d??Informació, Avaluació i Qualitat en Salut de Cataluña, (2010),
K.I. Shulman, N. Herrmann, H. Brodaty, H. Chiu, B. Lawlor, K. Ritchie, et al.
IPA survey of brief cognitive screening instruments.
Int Psychogeriatr, 18 (2006), pp. 281-294
R.J. Davey, S. Jamieson.
The validity of using the mini mental state examination in NICE dementia guidelines.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 75 (2004), pp. 343-344
S. Powsner, D. Powsner.
Cognition, copyright, and the classroom.
Am J Psychiatry, 162 (2005), pp. 627-628
T.N. Tombaugh, N.J. McIntyre.
The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 40 (1992), pp. 922-935
M.C. Tierney, J.P. Szalai, E. Dunn, D. Geslani, I. McDowell.
Prediction of probable Alzheimer disease in patients with symptoms suggestive of memory impairment Value of the Mini-Mental State Examination.
Arch Fam Med, 9 (2000), pp. 527-532
G. Haubois, C. Annweiler, C. Launay, B. Fantino, L. de Decker, G. Allali, et al.
Development of a short form of Mini-Mental State Examination for the screening of dementia in older adults with a memory complaint: a case control study.
BMC Geriatr, 11 (2011), pp. 59
K. Schultz-Larsen, R.K. Lomholt, S. Kreiner.
Mini-Mental Status Examination: a short form of MMSE was as accurate as the original MMSE in predicting dementia.
J Clin Epidemiol, 60 (2007), pp. 260-267
J.W. Ashford.
Screening for memory disorders, dementia and Alzheimer’ disease.
Aging Health, 4 (2008), pp. 399-432
S. Giménez-Roldán, M.J. Novillo, E. Navarro, J.L. Dobato, M. Giménez-Zuccarelli.
Examen del estado Mini-Mental: propuesta de una normativa para su aplicación.
Rev Neurol, 25 (1997), pp. 576-583
J.R. McCarten, P. Anderson, M.A. Kuskowski, S.E. McPherson, S. Borson.
Screening for cognitive impairment in an elderly veteran population: acceptability and results using different versions of the Mini-Cog.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 59 (2011), pp. 309-313
EPT Monitoring Report Team.
Report 2010. Reaching the marginalized.
UNESCO, (2010),
EPT Report Team.
The Dakar framework for action. Education for all: meeting our collective commitments.
UNESCO, (2000),
Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
Censo de Población.
M. Kutner, E. Greenberg, Y. Jin, B. Boyle, Y. Hsu, E. Dunleavy.
Literacy in every life: results from the 2003 National Assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2007-480).
National Center for Education Statistic, (2007),
Alzheimer’ Disease International.
World Alzheimer Report.
A.J. Mitchell.
A meta-analysis of the accuracy of the mini-mental state examination in the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment.
J Psychiatr Res, 43 (2009), pp. 411-431
I. Cruz-Orduña, J.M. Bellon, P. Torrero, E. Aparicio, A. Sanz, N. Mula, et al.
Detecting MCI and dementia in primary care: efficiency of the MMS, the FAQ and the IQCODE.
Fam Pract, 29 (2012), pp. 401-406
C. Carnero Pardo, I. Cruz Orduña, B. Espejo Martínez, S. Cárdenas Viedma, P. Torrero García, J. Olazaran Rodríguez.
Efectividad del Mini-Mental en la detección del deterioro cognitivo en Atención Primaria. Aten Primaria.
L. Rami, B. Bosch, C. Valls-Pedret, C. Caprile, R. Sánchez-Valle Diaz, J.L. Molinuevo.
Validez discriminativa y asociación del test minimental (MMSE) y del test de alteración de memoria (T@M) con una batería neuropsicológica en pacientes con deterioro cognitivo leve amnésico y enfermedad de Alzheimer.
Rev Neurol, 49 (2009), pp. 169-174
J. Cacho, J. Benito-Leon, R. Garcia-Garcia, B. Fernandez-Calvo, J.L. Vicente-Villardon, A.J. Mitchell.
Does the combination of the MMSE and clock drawing test (mini-clock) improve the detection of mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment.
J Alzheimers Dis, 22 (2010), pp. 889-896
J.S. Shiroky, H.M. Schipper, H. Bergman, H. Chertkow.
Can you have dementia with an MMSE score of 30?.
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen, 22 (2007), pp. 406-415
S.E. O’Bryant, J.D. Humphreys, G.E. Smith, R.J. Ivnik, N.R. Graff-Radford, R.C. Petersen, et al.
Detecting dementia with the Mini-Mental State Examination in highly educated individuals.
Arch Neurol, 65 (2008), pp. 963-967
M. Escribano-Aparicio, M. Pérez-Dively, F. García-García, A. Pérez-Martín, L. Romero, F. Ferrer, et al.
Validación del MMSE de Folstein en una población española de bajo nivel educativo.
Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol, 34 (1999), pp. 319-326
C. Carnero-Pardo, B. Espejo-Martinez, S. Lopez-Alcalde, M. Espinosa-Garcia, C. Saez-Zea, R. Vilchez-Carrillo, et al.
Effectiveness and costs of Phototest in dementia and cognitive impairment screening.
BMC Neurol, 11 (2011), pp. 92
H.C. Kraemer, D.J. Moritz, J. Yesavage.
Adjusting Mini-Mental State Examination scores for age and educational level to screen for dementia: correcting bias or reducing validity.
Int Psychogeriatr, 10 (1998), pp. 43-51
O. Pedraza, J.H. Clark, S.E. O’Bryant, G.E. Smith, R.J. Ivnik, N.R. Graff-Radford, et al.
Diagnostic validity of age and education corrections for the Mini-Mental State Examination in older African Americans.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 60 (2012), pp. 328-331
D. Rosselli, A. Ardila, G. Pradilla, L. Morillo, L. Bautista, O. Rey, et al.
El examen mental abreviado (Mini-Mental State Examination) como prueba de selección para el diagnóstico de demencia: estudio poblacional colombiano. GENECO.
Rev Neurol, 30 (2000), pp. 428-432
M. Scazufca, O.P. Almeida, H.P. Vallada, W.A. Tasse, P.R. Menezes.
Limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination for screening dementia in a community with low socioeconomic status: results from the Sao Paulo Ageing & Health Study.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 259 (2009), pp. 8-15
M.V. Zunzunegui, A. Otero.
Screening for dementia in populations with little education.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 25 (2010), pp. 1199
J.C. Newman, R. Feldman.
Copyright and open access at the bedside.
N Engl J Med, 365 (2011), pp. 2447-2449
R. Martin, D. O’Neill.
Taxing your memory.
Lancet, 373 (2009), pp. 2009-2010
B.A. Appels, E. Scherder.
Review: the diagnostic accuracy of dementia-screening instruments with an administration time of 10 to 45minutes for use in secondary care: a systematic review.
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen, 25 (2010), pp. 301-316
T. Holsinger, J. Deveau, M. Boustani, J.W. Williams Jr..
Does this patient have dementia.
JAMA, 297 (2007), pp. 2391-2404
J.A. Lonie, K.M. Tierney, K.P. Ebmeier.
Screening for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 24 (2009), pp. 902-915
A. Milne, A. Culverwell, R. Guss, J. Tuppen, R. Whelton.
Screening for dementia in primary care: a review of the use, efficacy and quality of measures.
Int Psychogeriatr, 20 (2008), pp. 911-926
Z. Ismail, T.K. Rajji, K.I. Shulman.
Brief cognitive screening instruments: an update.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 25 (2010), pp. 111-120
B. Cullen, B. O’Neill, J.J. Evans, R.F. Coen, B.A. Lawlor.
A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 78 (2007), pp. 790-799
P.R. Solomon, A. Hirschoff, B. Kelly, M. Relin, M. Brush, R.D. DeVeaux, et al.
A 7minute neurocognitive screening battery highly sensitive to Alzheimer's disease.
Arch Neurol, 55 (1998), pp. 349-355
P.S. Mathuranath, P.J. Nestor, G.E. Berrios, W. Rakowicz, J.R. Hodges.
A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia.
Neurology, 55 (2000), pp. 1613-1620
Z.S. Nasreddine, N.A. Phillips, V. Bedirian, S. Charbonneau, V. Whitehead, I. Collin, et al.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 53 (2005), pp. 695-699
E.F. Meulen, B. Schmand, J.P. van Campen, S.J. de Koning, R.W. Ponds, P. Scheltens, et al.
The seven minute screen: a neurocognitive screening test highly sensitive to various types of dementia.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 75 (2004), pp. 700-705
A.R. Lischka, M. Mendelsohn, T. Overend, D. Forbes.
A systematic review of screening tools for predicting the development of dementia.
Can J Aging, 31 (2012), pp. 295-311
S. Borson, J. Scanlan, M. Brush, P. Vitaliano, A. Dokmak.
The mini-cog: a cognitive “vital signs” measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 15 (2000), pp. 1021-1027
C. Carnero Pardo, C. Sáez-Zea, L. Montiel Navarro, P. Del Saz, I. Feria Vilar, M.J. Pérez Navarro, et al.
Utilidad diagnóstica del Test de las Fotos (Fototest) en deterioro cognitivo y demencia.
Neurologia, 22 (2007), pp. 860-869
S. Borson, J.M. Scanlan, J. Watanabe, S.P. Tu, M. Lessig.
Simplifying detection of cognitive impairment: comparison of the Mini-Cog and Mini-Mental State Examination in a multiethnic sample.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 53 (2005), pp. 871-874
C. Carnero Pardo, I. Cruz Orduña, B. Espejo Martínez, C. Martos Aparicio, S. López Alcalde, J. Olazaran Rodríguez.
Utility of the Mini-Cog for the detection of cognitive impairment in primary care: data from two Spanish studies.
J Int Alzheimers Dis, 2013 (2013), pp. 285462
R.A. Lourenco, S.T. Filho Ribeiro.
The accuracy of the Mini-Cog in screening low-educated elderly for dementia.
J Am Geriatr Soc, 54 (2006), pp. 376-377
C. Carnero-Pardo, B. Espejo-Martinez, S. Lopez-Alcalde, M. Espinosa-Garcia, C. Saez-Zea, E. Hernandez-Torres, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy, effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment and dementia screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates.
L. Rami, J.L. Molinuevo, R. Sanchez-Valle, B. Bosch, A. Villar.
Screening for amnestic mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease with M@T (Memory Alteration Test) in the primary care population.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 22 (2007), pp. 294-304
H. Buschke, G. Kuslansky, M. Katz, W.F. Stewart, M.J. Sliwinski, H.M. Eckholdt, et al.
Screening for dementia with the memory impairment screen.
Neurology, 52 (1999), pp. 231-238
C. Carnero-Pardo, M. Gurpegui, E. Sanchez-Cantalejo, A. Frank, S. Mola, M.S. Barquero, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy of the Eurotest for dementia: a naturalistic, multicenter phase II study.
BMC Neurol, 6 (2006), pp. 15
J.E. Storey, J.T. Rowland, D. Basic, D.A. Conforti, H.G. Dickson.
The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale.
Int Psychogeriatr, 16 (2004), pp. 13-31

Please cite this article as: Carnero-Pardo C. ¿Es hora de jubilar al Mini-Mental?. Neurología. 2014;29:473‐481.

Copyright © 2013. Sociedad Española de Neurología
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.