The ageing Arctic populations raise the need for work-up of cognitive function that reflects language and cultural understandings.

To translate and evaluate tools for work-up of cognitive impairment in Greenland.

Step A: An expert panel was established to select tools suitable for the work-up of cognitive impairment at three different settings in Greenland. Step B: Tools were translated in a multiple-step process of independent translations with back-translation and adaptations by two independent translators and two Greenlandic physicians. Step C: a testing and validation process of the tools at three locations: the national hospital in the capital city; regional hospital in a town; health care centre in a small town.

Tools selected were Mini-Cog and RUDAS. Participants for testing of tools were 43 of 61 invited, of which six had dementia. RUDAS and Mini-Cog scores were associated (p < 0.001). The smoothed AUC was 0.87 (95%-CI, 0.65–0.95) for Mini-Cog and 0.90 (95%-CI, 0.76–0.97) for RUDAS. The sensitivity of Mini-Cog with a cut-off at ≤3 was 83.3%, and specificity was 62.2%. For RUDAS with a cut-off at ≤23, these were 100% and 75.7%, respectively.

Requested tools have been translated for assessing cognitive function in the native Arctic setting. Small town residents with a Mini-Cog score of 3 or lower should be referred to a regional hospital for RUDAS, and a score of 23 or less should cause referral to the national hospital for a full work-up of cognitive function.

No significant relationships.

With increasing cultural diversity and growing elderly immigrant populations in Western European countries, the availability of brief cognitive screening instruments adequate for assessment of dementia in people from diverse backgrounds becomes increasingly important. The aim of the present study was to investigate diagnostic accuracy of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) in a multicultural sample and to calculate normative data as a basis for demographic adjustment of RUDAS scores.

The study was a prospective international cross-sectional multi-center study. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to examine diagnostic accuracy. Regression analysis was used to assess the impact of demographic variables.

Data was collected from 341 cognitively intact participants and 80 people with dementia with a wide age- and educational range. Of the 421 included participants, 239 (57%) had immigrant background. The RUDAS had high diagnostic accuracy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93. The optimal cut-off score was <25 (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.90). Regression analysis revealed that RUDAS scores were mainly affected by education and were unrelated to data collection site and immigrant status. Education-adjusted normative data was calculated as a basis for education adjustment of RUDAS scores. Applying education-adjusted RUDAS scores slightly but significantly improved diagnostic accuracy with an AUC of 0.95.

We found the RUDAS to have excellent diagnostic properties in our multicultural sample. However, we suggest that RUDAS scores should be adjusted for education to increase diagnostic accuracy and that the choice of cut-off score should be considered based on the clinical context and expected base rate of dementia.

With the ubiquitous Mini-Mental State Exam now under copyright, attention is turning to alternative cognitive screening tests. The aim of the present study was to investigate three common cognitive screening tools: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS), and the recently revised Addenbrooke's Cognitive Assessment Version III (ACE-III).

The ACE-III, MoCA and RUDAS were administered in random order to a sample of 37 participants with diagnosed mild dementia and 47 comparison participants without dementia. The diagnostic accuracy of the three tests was assessed.

All the tests showed good overall accuracy as assessed by area under the ROC Curve, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.80–0.95) for the ACE-III, 0.84 (0.75–0.91) for the MoCA, and 0.86 (0.77–0.93) for RUDAS. The three tests were strongly correlated: r(84) = 0.85 (0.78–0.90) between the ACE-III and MoCA, 0.70 (0.57–0.80) between the ACE-III and RUDAS; and 0.65 (0.50–0.76) between the MoCA and RUDAS. The data derived optimal cut-off points for were lower than the published recommendations for the ACE-III (optimal cut-point ≤76, sensitivity = 81.1%, specificity = 85.1%) and the MoCA (≤20, sensitivity = 78.4%, specificity = 83.0%), but similar for the RUDAS (≤22, sensitivity = 78.4%, specificity = 85.1%).

All three tools discriminated well overall between cases of mild dementia and controls. To inform interpretation of these tests in clinical settings, it would be useful for future research to address more inclusive and potentially age-stratified local norms.