Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated With Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors

Jeanette M. Daly; Yinghui Xu; Seth D. Crockett; Megan E. Schmidt; Peter Kim; Barcey T. Levy

doi:10.1370/afm.2855

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated with Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
Jeanette Daly

Published on: 22 February 2023
RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated With Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
Allison E. Bell, Elissa W. Ekmark, Scarlett G. O'Hara and Lorraine S. Wallace

Published on: 21 February 2023
RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated with Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
Gerald Jogerst

Published on: 09 November 2022

Published on: (22 February 2023)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated with Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated with Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
Jeanette Daly, Research Scientist, University of Iowa
The FIT instructions for our study were duplicative of the instructions each manufacturer provides to the public. We didn't alter those instructions. We wanted the study to be the same as how a patient would normally collect their specimen. Our study invited persons having a colonoscopy. We did not have anything to do with the preparation or the procedure. We reviewed the colonoscopy report after it was completed. It would be good to conduct a similar study in a different population.
Thanks for your comments.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Daly

Competing Interests: None declared.
Published on: (21 February 2023)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated With Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated With Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
Allison E. Bell, undergraduate, The Ohio State University
Other Contributors:
Elissa W. Ekmark, undergraduate

Scarlett G. O'Hara, undergraduate

Lorraine S. Wallace, Associate Professor—College of Medicine
We are three aspiring healthcare professionals currently studying at The Ohio State University.
As colon cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in the United States, we are aware of the importance of early screening and detection. After reading your article, a few things stood out to us. First, the number of rejected samples, due to collection errors, was higher than we expected. And, as such, we are curious as to the underlying reasons for this occurrence. Given that previous research has documented difficulty of internet-based colonoscopy preparation information,1 we wonder if fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions provided in your study had been assessed for readability and/or created in accordance with Plain Writing Act—2010 guidelines?2 Further, did participants have an opportunity to ask questions about FIT instructions? Second, as study participants were also taking laxatives, we are curious as to whether you assessed correct dosing and administration for laxatives as well. Third, the study population consisted predominantly of highly educated adults (72% had at least a college degree). As such, we wonder what the results would look like if the study sample more accurately represented the American population regarding educational attainment. Thank you for considering our questions.

References

1. MacLean SA, Basch CH, Clark A, Basch CE. Readability of information on colonoscopy preparation on the internet. Health Promot...
Show More

We are three aspiring healthcare professionals currently studying at The Ohio State University.
As colon cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in the United States, we are aware of the importance of early screening and detection. After reading your article, a few things stood out to us. First, the number of rejected samples, due to collection errors, was higher than we expected. And, as such, we are curious as to the underlying reasons for this occurrence. Given that previous research has documented difficulty of internet-based colonoscopy preparation information,1 we wonder if fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions provided in your study had been assessed for readability and/or created in accordance with Plain Writing Act—2010 guidelines?2 Further, did participants have an opportunity to ask questions about FIT instructions? Second, as study participants were also taking laxatives, we are curious as to whether you assessed correct dosing and administration for laxatives as well. Third, the study population consisted predominantly of highly educated adults (72% had at least a college degree). As such, we wonder what the results would look like if the study sample more accurately represented the American population regarding educational attainment. Thank you for considering our questions.

References

1. MacLean SA, Basch CH, Clark A, Basch CE. Readability of information on colonoscopy preparation on the internet. Health Promot Perspect. 2018;8(2):167-170. 10.15171/hpp.2018.22
2. Plain writing act of 2010. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/law/ Accessed Feb 21, 2023.
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.
Published on: (9 November 2022)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated with Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
RE: Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated with Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors
Gerald Jogerst, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa
Clock Drawing Test: One method of knowing the informant
Originally the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) was used to assess constructional apraxia and employed in investigations of soldiers who were victims of head trauma during World War II.1 In 1986, Shulman and colleagues published the first study using the CDT as a screening tool for older adults with possible cognitive disorders.2 CDT allows for simultaneous evaluation of different cognitive abilities, including attention, comprehension, verbal working memory, numerical knowledge, visual memory and reconstruction, visuospatial skills, praxis and executive function. 3 Since 1986 there has been at least 25 CDT scoring systems develop, yet no consensus reached on which scoring method is the most accurate.1,4 When screening for dementia, CDTs are reported to be 67% to 98% sensitive and 69% to 95% specific.5
Daly et al6 used the CDT, scored with the Mendes-Santos4 and the Watson7 methods, to evaluate for cognitive impairment in a sample of 1448 participants without a history of dementia and a mean age of 63 years. Their hypothesis was that impairment demonstrated on the CDT may be associated with errors in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) sample collection. They found that being female, having 8th grade education or less, and having an abnormal clock drawing scored by Mendes-Santo’s method were associated with FIT collection errors.
Daly’s study raises an important issue for primary care physicians, as they may re...
Show More

Clock Drawing Test: One method of knowing the informant
Originally the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) was used to assess constructional apraxia and employed in investigations of soldiers who were victims of head trauma during World War II.1 In 1986, Shulman and colleagues published the first study using the CDT as a screening tool for older adults with possible cognitive disorders.2 CDT allows for simultaneous evaluation of different cognitive abilities, including attention, comprehension, verbal working memory, numerical knowledge, visual memory and reconstruction, visuospatial skills, praxis and executive function. 3 Since 1986 there has been at least 25 CDT scoring systems develop, yet no consensus reached on which scoring method is the most accurate.1,4 When screening for dementia, CDTs are reported to be 67% to 98% sensitive and 69% to 95% specific.5
Daly et al6 used the CDT, scored with the Mendes-Santos4 and the Watson7 methods, to evaluate for cognitive impairment in a sample of 1448 participants without a history of dementia and a mean age of 63 years. Their hypothesis was that impairment demonstrated on the CDT may be associated with errors in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) sample collection. They found that being female, having 8th grade education or less, and having an abnormal clock drawing scored by Mendes-Santo’s method were associated with FIT collection errors.
Daly’s study raises an important issue for primary care physicians, as they may rely more on patients’ reports, home administered specimen collections, patient recordings of home blood pressures and data from “prediagnostic” wearables (Fitbit, other smartphone applications).8 How reliable are patients who report self -collected data and how is this data used to identify diagnoses and prescribe treatments?
A first step in calibrating the reliability of the information acquired from the patient is to evaluate the cognitive abilities of the patient. The CDT provides an easily applied quick instrument to evaluate many cognitive domains and the addition of 3-word recall covers immediate recall abilities (Mini-Cog).9 Mini-Cog screening is applied in Medicare Wellness Visits and should be considered whenever patients or families have concerns about cognitive decline. With 25 different scoring methods to choose from, how does one interpret the CDT? Since there is no consensus on which method is most accurate, I agree with Mainland10 that a qualitative assessment of “normal” versus “abnormal” may be sufficient for screening purposes, the result leading to the decision if further diagnostic testing is needed.
Thank you to the Daly team for pointing out the importance of knowing the informant or specimen collector when interpreting medical information.

1. Spenciere B, Alves H, Charchat-Fichman H. Scoring systems for the Clock Drawing Test: A historical review. Dementia & Neuropsychologia. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):6-14. doi:10.1590/1980-57642016dn11-010003
2. Shulman KI, Shedletsky R, Silver IL. The challenge of time clock-drawing and cognitive function in the elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 1986;1(2):135-140. doi:10.1002/gps.930010209
3. Mendez MF, Ala T, Underwood KL. Development of scoring criteria for the clock drawing task in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 1992 Nov;40(11):1095-1099. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1992.tb01796.x
4. Mendes-Santos LC MD, Spenciere B, Charchat-Fichman H Specific algorithm method of scoring the Clock Drawing Test applied in cognitively normal elderly. Dementia & Neuropsychologia. Apr-Jun 2015 2015;9(2):128-135. doi:10.1590/1980-57642015DN92000007
5. Smedslund G, Siqveland J, Leiknes KA. Psychometric Assessment of the Clock Drawing Test [Internet]. Knowledge Centre for the Health Services at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), Oslo, Norway; 2015. No. 16-2015. June 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390574/
6. Daly JM, Xu Y, Crockett SD, Schmidt ME, Kim P, Levy BT. Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated With Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors. Annals of Family Medicine. 2022 Sep-Oct;20(5):452-459. doi:10.1370/afm.2855.
7. Watson YI, Arfken CL, Birge SJ. Clock completion: an objective screening test for dementia. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 1993;41(11)doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb07308.x
8. Simon DA, Shachar C, Cohen IG. Unsettled Liability Issues for "Prediagnostic" Wearables and Health-Related Products. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2022 Oct 11;328(14):1391-1392. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.16317
9. Seitz DP, CC, Newton HT, Gill SS, Herrmann N, Smailagic N, Nikolaou V, Fage BA. Mini-Cog for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias within a primary care setting. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018 Feb 22;2(2):CD011415. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011415.pub2
10. Mainland BJ, Amodeo S, Shulman KI. Multiple clock drawing scoring systems: simpler is better. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2014 Feb;29(2):127-136. doi:10.1002/gps.3992
Gerald J. Jogerst, MD
Professor Emeritus
Family Medicine & Psychiatry
University of Iowa
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.