Back to Authors

Magaldi, Regina Miksian

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9104-2406

Mayo Clinic

Universidade de São Paulo

Citations 2

Bedside cognitive screening to detect dementia and predict poor outcomes in hospitals
Covinsky, Kenneth E. , Bertola, Laiss, Magaldi, Regina Miksian , Oh, Esther S., Carvalho, Bruna Macêdo de, Lima, Maria Eduarda Pires Lins e Silva, Almeida, Perola Quintans De, Melo, Victor José Dornelas, Pinheiro, Tatiana de Carvalho Espíndola , Lira, Raiza Tavares, Macedo, Ênio Simas , Yassuda, Mônica Sanches, Suemoto, Cláudia Kimie , Group, the CHANGE Study, Bertola, Laiss , Aliberti, Márlon J R , Suemoto, Claudia Kimie , Avelino‐Silva, Thiago Junqueira , Oh, Esther S , Carpenter, Christopher R. , Bicalho, Maria Aparecida Camargos , LIRA, RAÍZA TAVARES, Yassuda, Mônica Sanches

Alzheimer's & Dementia | March 20, 2026 | Volume: 22 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.71289 Get It

Abstract INTRODUCTION Cognitive impairment in hospitalized older adults without delirium is often undiagnosed. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of two brief bedside screening tools—the 10‐point Cognitive Screener (10‐CS) and Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). METHODS Multicenter prospective cohort of 2003 patients ≥65 years of age without delirium, admitted to 43 hospitals in five countries of the Creating a Hospital Assessment Network in Geriatrics (CHANGE) Study. Screening was completed within 48 h of admission. Dementia was defined as informant‐based Clinical Dementia Rating ≥1. RESULTS Dementia prevalence was 22%, with 35% undiagnosed. Both tools showed good accuracy for detecting dementia, with the 10‐CS slightly more accurate than SPMSQ (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87 vs 0.85; p = 0.02). After adjustment, cognitive impairment detected by either tool was associated with increased risk of incident delirium, hospital‐associated disability in self‐care activities, and 90‐day mortality, but not prolonged stay. DISCUSSION Brief bedside screening identified dementia and predicted adverse outcomes, supporting its integration into routine hospital care.
Pulling Back the Curtain on Hospital Dementia Detection: Validation of the Informant‐Based Clinical Dementia Rating
Avelino‐Silva, Thiago Junqueira , Covinsky, Kenneth E. , Bertola, Laiss , Magaldi, Regina Miksian , Boyd, Cynthia M. , Carpenter, Christopher R. , Yassuda, Mônica Sanches, Suemoto, Cláudia Kimie , Group, the CHANGE Study, Aliberti, Márlon J R , Avelino-Silva, Thiago Junqueira , Carpenter, Christopher R , Suemoto, Claudia Kimie , Yassuda, Mônica Sanches, Group, the CHANGE Study

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society | May 2, 2025 | Volume: 73 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 2524-2530

10.1111/jgs.19494 Get It

ABSTRACT Background Dementia often goes undetected in hospital settings, where cognitive assessments are challenging due to illness severity and delirium. This study aimed to (1) evaluate the accuracy of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), based solely on knowledgeable informant reports, for detecting preexisting dementia and cognitive impairment in hospitalized patients compared to a gold‐standard diagnosis, (2) and compare its performance to the 16‐item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE‐16). Methods This cross‐sectional study assessed consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 admitted to inpatient units from five hospitals in Brazil. The informant‐based CDR was administered to knowledgeable informants within 48 h of admission, capturing patients' cognitive status 3 months before hospitalization to avoid the influence of acute cognitive impairments. Blinded experts provided a gold standard clinical diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND) based on a 90‐min comprehensive assessment, including a standardized neuropsychology battery. Areas under the curve (AUC) examined diagnostic accuracy. Results Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND . Compared to the gold standard, the informant‐based CDR showed excellent diagnostic accuracy for detecting dementia ( AUC = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [ CI ] = 0.86–0.98) and cognitive impairment ( AUC = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.88–0.98), with a cutoff of ≥ 1 showing 98% specificity for dementia and a cutoff of ≥ 0.5 showing 98% sensitivity for cognitive impairment. Compared to the IQCODE ‐16, the informant‐based CDR had similar performance in detecting dementia and a nonsignificant slight advantage in identifying cognitive impairment ( AUC = 0.93 vs. 0.84, p = 0.069), reducing unrecognized cognitive impairment based on medical record documentation from 70% to 2%. Conclusions Informant‐based CDR is a valid and efficient tool for detecting dementia and cognitive impairment in hospitalized older adults, supporting early diagnosis and guiding multidisciplinary interventions in acute care. Its use in routine hospitals may help clinicians reduce undetected cognitive impairment, enhance decision making, and improve patient care.