Dataset Information

Sensitivity and specificity of the Bamberg Dementia Screening Test's (BDST) full and short versions: brief screening instruments for geriatric patients that are suitable for infectious environments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, many patients suffering from dementia do not have a diagnosis when admitted to geriatric hospitals. This is the case despite an increased risk of complications affecting the length of stay and outcome. Unfortunately, many dementia screening tests cannot be used on geriatric inpatients, who are often bedridden. Therefore, we aimed at evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of a small battery of bedside tasks that require minimal vision and fine motor skills in patients with suspected dementia.

Methods

In this prospective study, the Bamberg Dementia Screening Test (BDST) was administered to a consecutive series of 1295 patients referred for neuropsychological testing. The diagnosis of dementia was confirmed in 1159 and excluded in 136 patients. Sensitivity and specificity for the first subtest (ultra-short form), the first two subtests (short form), and the total score of the BDST were obtained via receiver operating characteristic curves and compared with the sensitivity and specificity values of the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE).

Results

The overall diagnostic quality of the BDST was superior to the MMSE for mild Alzheimer's dementia (sensitivity and specificity?=?.94 (95% CI .92 to .96) and .82 (95% CI .75 to .88) vs. .79 (95% CI .76 to .83) and .88 (95% CI .82 to .93)) as well as for other subtypes of mild dementia (sensitivity and specificity?=?.91 (95% CI .88 to .94) and .82 (95% CI .75 to .88) vs. .72 (95% CI .67 to .76) and .88 (95% CI .82 to .93)). Even the short form of the BDST was comparable to the MMSE regarding sensitivity and specificity. For moderate dementia, it was possible to identify dementia cases with sufficient and excellent diagnostic quality by using the ultra-short and the short form.

Conclusions

The BDST is able to detect dementia in geriatric hospital settings. If the adaptive algorithm is used, administration time can be reduced to less than 2 min in most cases. Because no test materials have to be exchanged, this test is particularly suitable for infectious environments where contact between the examiner and the person being tested should be minimized.

SUBMITTER: Trapp W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7934397 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sensitivity and specificity of the Bamberg Dementia Screening Test's (BDST) full and short versions: brief screening instruments for geriatric patients that are suitable for infectious environments.

Trapp Wolfgang W Röder Susanne S Heid Andreas A Billman Pia P Daiber Susanne S Hajak Göran G

BMC medicine 20210305 1

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, many patients suffering from dementia do not have a diagnosis when admitted to geriatric hospitals. This is the case despite an increased risk of complications affecting the length of stay and outcome. Unfortunately, many dementia screening tests cannot be used on geriatric inpatients, who are often bedridden. Therefore, we aimed at evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of a small battery of bedside tasks that require minimal vision and fine motor skills in patients wi ...[more]

PMID: 33663471

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBrief assessments of functional status for community-dwelling older adults are needed given expanded interest in the measurement of functional decline.MethodsAs part of a 2015 prospective cohort study of older adults aged 60-89 years in Jiangsu Province, China, 1506 participants were randomly assigned to two groups; each group was administered one of two alternative 20-item versions of a scale to assess activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) drawn from multiple commonly-used scales. One version asked if they required help to perform activities (ADL-IADL-HELP-20), while the other version provided additional response options if activities could be done alone but with difficulty (ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-20). Item responses to both versions were compared using the binomial test for differences in proportion (with Wald 95% confidence interval [CI]). A brief 9-item scale (ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-9) was developed favoring items identified as difficult or requiring help by ≥4%, with low redundancy and/or residual correlations, and with significant correlations with age and other health indicators. We repeated assessment of the measurement properties of the brief scale in two subsequent samples of older adults in Hong Kong in 2016 (aged 70-79 years; n = 404) and 2017 (aged 65-82 years; n = 1854).ResultsAsking if an activity can be done alone but with difficulty increased the proportion of participants reporting restriction on 9 of 20 items, for which 95% CI for difference scores did not overlap with zero; the proportion with at least one limitation increased from 28.6% to 34.2% or an absolute increase of 5.6% (95% CI = 0.9-10.3%), which was a relative increase of 19.6%. The brief ADL-IADL-DIFFICULTY-9 maintained excellent internal consistency (α = 0.93) and had similar ceiling effect (68.1%), invariant item ordering (H trans = .41; medium), and correlations with age and other health measures compared with the 20-item version. The brief scale performed similarly when subsequently administered to older adults in Hong Kong.ConclusionsAsking if tasks can be done alone but with difficulty can modestly reduce ceiling effects. It's possible that the length of commonly-used scales can be reduced by over half if researchers are primarily interested in a summed indicator rather than an inventory of specific types of deficits.

Project description:Background Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability for youth worldwide. However, there is a dearth of validated, brief instruments to assess mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). We aimed to facilitate identification of mental disorders in LMIC contexts by adapting and validating measures of internalizing and externalizing disorders for adolescents in Mozambique, an LMIC in southeastern Africa. Methods We selected instruments with good support for validity in high-income and other LMIC settings: the Patient Health Questionnaire Adolescent (PHQ-A), Generalized Anxiety Disorders 7 (GAD-7), and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Instruments were adapted by local and international mental health specialists followed by cognitive interviews (n = 48) with Mozambican adolescents. We administered the instruments along with the Miniature International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID)to 485 adolescents aged 12–19 years attending two secondary schools in Maputo City, Mozambique. One week later, we re-administered instruments to a randomly selected sample of 49 adolescents. Results Participants were 66.2% (n = 321) female and the average age was 15.9 (S.D = 1.7).Internal consistency (alpha = 0.80, PHQ-A; 0.84, GAD-7; 0.80, SDQ) and test–retest reliabilty (ICC = 0.74, PHQ-A; 0.70, GAD-7; 0.77, SDQ) were acceptabe for the PHQ-A, GAD-7, and the full SDQ. The SDQ internalizing subscale showed poor test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.63) and the SDQ externalizing subscale showed poor internal consistency (alpha = 0.65). All instruments demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity (> 0.70). Youden’s index identified optimal cutoff scores of 8 for the PHQ-A, 5 for the GAD-7, 10 for the SDQ internalizing and 9 for the SDQ externalizing subscales, though a range of scores provided acceptable sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions Our data supports reliability and validity of the PHQ-A, GAD-7, and SDQ instruments for rapidly assessing mental health problems in Mozambican adolescents. Use of these tools in other contexts with limited specialists may asist with expanding mental health assessment. Specific instrument and cutoff selection should be based on screening goals, treatment resources, and program objectives. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-04189-3.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of five health literacy screening instruments in emergency department (ED) patients: the Rapid Evaluation of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Revised (REALM-R), the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), Single Item Literacy Screens (SILS), health numeracy, and physician gestalt. A secondary objective was to evaluate the feasibility of these instruments as measured by administration time, time on task, and interruptions during test administration.MethodsThis was a prospective observational cross-sectional study of a convenience sampling of adult patients presenting during March 2011 and February 2012 to one urban university-affiliated ED. Subjects were consenting non-critically ill, English-speaking patients over the age of 18 years without aphasia, dementia, mental retardation, or inability to communicate. The diagnostic test characteristics of the REALM-R, NVS, SILS, health numeracy, and physician gestalt were quantitatively assessed by using the short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA). A score of 22 or less was the criterion standard for limited health literacy (LHL).ResultsA total of 435 participants were enrolled, with a mean (±SD) age of 45 (±15.7) years, and 18% had less than a high school education. As defined by an S-TOFHLA score of 22 or less, the prevalence of LHL was 23.9%. In contrast, the NVS, REALM-R, and physician gestalt identified 64.8, 48.5, and 35% of participants as LHL, respectively. A normal NVS screen was the most useful test to exclude LHL, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.17). When abnormal, none of the screening instruments, including physician gestalt, significantly increased the posttest probability of LHL. The NVS and REALM-R require 3 and 5 minutes less time to administer than the S-TOFHLA. Administration of the REALM-R is associated with fewer test interruptions.ConclusionsOne-quarter of these ED patients had marginal or inadequate health literacy. Among the brief screening instruments evaluated, a normal NVS result accurately reduced the probability of LHL, although it will identify two-thirds of ED patients as high risk for LHL. None of the brief screening instruments significantly increases the probability of LHL when abnormal.

Dataset Information

Sensitivity and specificity of the Bamberg Dementia Screening Test's (BDST) full and short versions: brief screening instruments for geriatric patients that are suitable for infectious environments.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sensitivity and specificity of the Bamberg Dementia Screening Test's (BDST) full and short versions: brief screening instruments for geriatric patients that are suitable for infectious environments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets