Dataset Information

Validity of screening instruments for the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in hospital inpatients: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:As the population ages, Alzheimer's disease and other subtypes of dementia are becoming increasingly prevalent. However, in recent years, diagnosis has often been delayed or not made at all. Thus, improving the rate of diagnosis has become an integral part of national dementia strategies. Although screening for dementia remains controversial, the case is strong for screening for dementia and other forms of cognitive impairment in hospital inpatients. For this reason, the objective of this systematic review was to provide clinicians, who wish to implement screening, an up-to-date choice of cognitive tests with the most extensive evidence base for the use in elective hospital inpatients. METHODS:For this systematic review, PubMed, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library were searched by using a multi-concept search strategy. The databases were accessed on April 10, 2019. All cross-sectional studies that utilized brief, multi-domain cognitive tests as index test and a reference standard diagnosis of dementia or mild cognitive impairment as comparator were included. Only studies conducted in the hospital setting, sampling from unselected, elective inpatients older than 64 were considered. RESULTS:Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2112 participants. Diagnostic accuracy data for the Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test, Cognitive Performance Scale, Clock-Drawing Test, Mini-Mental Status Examination, and Time & Change test were extracted and descriptively analyzed. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies precluded performing a meta-analysis. DISCUSSION:This review found only a small number of instruments and was not able to recommend a single best instrument for use in a hospital setting. Although it was not possible to estimate the pooled operating characteristics, the included description of instrument characteristics, the descriptive analysis of performance measures, and the critical evaluation of the reporting studies may contribute to clinician's choice of the screening instrument that fits best their purpose.

SUBMITTER: Hwang AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6657852 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validity of screening instruments for the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in hospital inpatients: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Hwang Aljoscha Benjamin AB Boes Stefan S Nyffeler Thomas T Schuepfer Guido G

PloS one 20190725 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>As the population ages, Alzheimer's disease and other subtypes of dementia are becoming increasingly prevalent. However, in recent years, diagnosis has often been delayed or not made at all. Thus, improving the rate of diagnosis has become an integral part of national dementia strategies. Although screening for dementia remains controversial, the case is strong for screening for dementia and other forms of cognitive impairment in hospital inpatients. For this reason, the obj ...[more]

PMID: 31344048

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly detection of cognitive impairment is among the top research priorities aimed at reducing the global burden of dementia. Currently used screening tools have high sensitivity but lack specificity at their original cut-off, while decreasing the cut-off was repeatedly shown to improve specificity, but at the cost of lower sensitivity. In 2012, a new screening tool was introduced that aims to overcome these limitations - the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci). The original English Qmci has been rigorously validated and demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with both good sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-off value for the German Qmci, and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from healthy older adults (HOA; n = 43) and individuals who have a clinical diagnosis of 'mild neurocognitive disorder' (mNCD; n = 37) with a biomarker supported characterization of the etiology of mNCD of three studies of the 'Brain-IT' project. Using Youden's Index, we calculated the optimal cut-off score to distinguish between HOA and mNCD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy based on the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Reliability (internal consistency) was analyzed by calculating Cronbach's α. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing convergent validity between Qmci-G subdomain scores and reference assessments measuring the same neurocognitive domain.ResultsThe optimal cut-off score for the Qmci-G was ≤ 67 (AUC = 0.96). This provided a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 90.7%. The PPV and NPV were 89.5% and 92.9%, respectively. Cronbach's α of the Qmci-G was 0.71 (CI95% [0.65 to 0.78]). The Qmci-G demonstrated good construct validity for subtests measuring learning and memory. Subtests that measure executive functioning and/or visuo-spatial skills showed mixed findings and/or did not correlate as strongly as expected with reference assessments.ConclusionOur findings corroborate the existing evidence of the Qmci's good diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity. Additionally, the Qmci shows potential in resolving the limitations of commonly used screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. To verify these findings for the Qmci-G, testing in clinical environments and/or primary health care and direct comparisons with standard screening tools utilized in these settings are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension and cognitive impairment often coexist in older people. Office blood pressure measurement is a poor indicator for diagnosing hypertension in the general population. However, its diagnostic accuracy has not been substantially studied in patients with cognitive impairment.AimThe aim of this study was to determine the proportion of misdiagnosis of hypertension in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia compared to no cognitive impairment, by comparing office blood pressure measurement with home blood pressure measurement.MethodsA cross-sectional study including consecutive patients visiting a memory clinic between 2014 and 2017. Home blood pressure was measured for one week according to the European guidelines. Office blood pressure was assessed during routine clinical practice. Using guideline definitions for normal blood pressure and hypertension, we investigated the proportion of disagreement between office blood pressure measurement and home blood pressure measurement. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression compared disagreement in diagnosis between patients with dementia, mild cognitive impairment and no cognitive impairment.ResultsOf 213 patients (aged 73.4±9.0 years, 42% women) 82 had dementia, 65 had mild cognitive impairment and 66 had no cognitive impairment. Mean office blood pressure was 156/84±23/11 mmHg and mean home blood pressure was 139/79±16/10 mmHg. In 31% of patients, there was disagreement in hypertension diagnosis. This proportion was higher for mild cognitive impairment (38.5%) and dementia (35.4%) compared to no cognitive impairment (18.2%), with adjusted odds ratios of 3.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5-9.0), P=0.005 for mild cognitive impairment and 3.4 (1.3-8.6), P=0.011 for dementia.ConclusionsIn memory clinic patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment, the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure measurement is lower compared to patients without cognitive impairment. To avoid the risk of making improper treatment decisions in this vulnerable group, a diagnosis of hypertension should be based on home blood pressure measurement, not office blood pressure measurement.

Project description:BackgroundMild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia, are emerging terms that encompass the clinical state between normal cognition and dementia in elderly people. Controversy surrounds their characterization, definition and application in clinical practice. In this article, we provide physicians with practical guidance on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of mild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia, based on recommendations from the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia, held in March 2006.MethodsWe developed evidence-based guidelines using systematic literature searches, with specific criteria for study selection and quality assessment, and a clear and transparent decision-making process. We selected studies published from January 1996 to December 2005 that had mild cognitive impairment or cognitive impairment, no dementia, as the outcome. Subsequent to the conference, we searched for additional articles published between January 2006 and January 2008. We graded the strength of evidence using the criteria of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.ResultsWe identified 2483 articles, of which 314 were considered to be relevant and of good or fair quality. From a synthesis of the evidence in these studies, we made 16 recommendations. In brief, family physicians should be aware that most types of dementia are preceded by a recognizable phase of mild cognitive decline. They should be familiar with the concepts of mild cognitive impairment and of cognitive impairment, no dementia. Patients with these conditions should be closely monitored because of their increased risk for dementia. Leisure activities, cognitive stimulation and physical activity could be promoted as part of a healthy lifestyle in elderly people and those with mild cognitive impairment. Vascular risk factors should be treated optimally. No other specific therapies can yet be recommended.InterpretationPhysicians will increasingly see elderly patients with mild memory loss, and learning an approach to diagnosing states such as mild cognitive impairment is now warranted. Close monitoring for progression to dementia, promotion of a healthy lifestyle and treatment of vascular risk factors are recommended for the management of patients with mild cognitive impairment.

Project description:BackgroundThe development of diagnostic tools capable of accurately identifying the pathophysiology of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has become a crucial target considering the claim that disease-modifying treatments should be administered as early as possible in the disease course. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) protocols have demonstrated analytical validity in discriminating different forms of dementia; however, its value in daily clinical practice in MCI subjects is still unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical value of TMS compared to amyloid markers on diagnostic confidence and accuracy in MCI subjects, considering clinicians' expertise.MethodsOne hundred seven MCI subjects were included and classified as MCI-Alzheimer disease (MCI-AD), MCI-frontotemporal dementia (MCI-FTD), MCI-dementia with Lewy bodies (MCI-DLB), or MCI-other in a three-step process based on (i) demographic, clinical, and neuropsychological evaluation (clinical work-up); (ii) clinical work-up PLUS amyloidosis markers or clinical work-up PLUS TMS measures; and (iii) clinical work-up PLUS both markers. Two blinded neurologists with different clinical expertise were asked to express a diagnostic confidence for each MCI subgroup, and ROC curve analyses were performed at each step.ResultsThe addition of TMS markers to clinical work-up significantly increased the diagnostic confidence for MCI-AD (p?=?0.003), MCI-FTD (p?=?0.044), and MCI-DLB (p?=?0.033) compared to clinical work-up alone, but not for MCI-other (p?>?0.05). No significant differences between the add-on effect of TMS and the add-on effect of amyloid markers to clinical work-up were observed (p?>?0.732), while the diagnostic confidence further increased when both markers were available. The greater the clinical expertise, the greater the flexibility in considering alternative diagnosis, and the greater the ability to modify diagnostic confidence with TMS and amyloid markers.ConclusionsTMS in addition to routine clinical assessment in MCI subjects has a significant effect on diagnostic accuracy and confidence, comparable to well-established biomarkers of amyloidosis.

Dataset Information

Validity of screening instruments for the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in hospital inpatients: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Publications

Validity of screening instruments for the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in hospital inpatients: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets