Clock drawing test in screening for Alzheimer's dementia and mild cognitive impairment in clinical practice

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00159816%3A_____%2F17%3A00065972" target="_blank" >RIV/00159816:_____/17:00065972 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11130/17:10373761 RIV/00064203:_____/17:10373761

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.4549" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.4549</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.4549" target="_blank" >10.1002/gps.4549</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Clock drawing test in screening for Alzheimer's dementia and mild cognitive impairment in clinical practice

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objectives The clock drawing test (CDT) is a commonly used brief cognitive measure. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of subjective ratings of CDT by physicians (with/without specialty in cognitive neurology) and neuropsychologists in discriminating amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), Alzheimer&apos;s dementia (AD) and cognitively healthy older adults. We further compared the diagnostic accuracy of subjective categorical ratings with complex scoring of CDT. Methods Three cognitive neurologists, three neuropsychologists and six neurology residents without experience in cognitive neurology blinded to the diagnosis rated 187 CDTs (50 mild AD, 49 aMCI and 88 cognitively healthy older adults) using a &quot;yes&quot; (abnormal) versus &quot;suspected&quot; versus &quot;no&quot; (normal) classification. The rating suspected was combined with yes or no to obtain two sets of sensitivity estimates. We also used a 17-point CDT rating system. Results When using the categorical rating, neuropsychologists had highest sensitivity (89%) in differentiating patients with mild AD (yes/suspected versus no), followed by neurologic residents (80%) and cognitive neurologists (79%). When differentiating patients with aMCI (yes/suspected versus no), the sensitivity was 84% for neuropsychologists, 64% for cognitive neurologists and 62% for residents. The sensitivity using the complex scoring system was 92% in patients with mild AD and 69% in patients with aMCI. Conclusions A categorical rating of CDT shows high sensitivity for mild AD even in non-experienced raters. Neuropsychologists outperformed physicians in differentiating patients with aMCI from cognitively healthy older adults (specificity), which was counterbalanced by the lower specificity of their ratings. The diagnostic accuracy was not substantially improved by using complex scoring system. Copyright (C) 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Clock drawing test in screening for Alzheimer's dementia and mild cognitive impairment in clinical practice

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objectives The clock drawing test (CDT) is a commonly used brief cognitive measure. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of subjective ratings of CDT by physicians (with/without specialty in cognitive neurology) and neuropsychologists in discriminating amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), Alzheimer&apos;s dementia (AD) and cognitively healthy older adults. We further compared the diagnostic accuracy of subjective categorical ratings with complex scoring of CDT. Methods Three cognitive neurologists, three neuropsychologists and six neurology residents without experience in cognitive neurology blinded to the diagnosis rated 187 CDTs (50 mild AD, 49 aMCI and 88 cognitively healthy older adults) using a &quot;yes&quot; (abnormal) versus &quot;suspected&quot; versus &quot;no&quot; (normal) classification. The rating suspected was combined with yes or no to obtain two sets of sensitivity estimates. We also used a 17-point CDT rating system. Results When using the categorical rating, neuropsychologists had highest sensitivity (89%) in differentiating patients with mild AD (yes/suspected versus no), followed by neurologic residents (80%) and cognitive neurologists (79%). When differentiating patients with aMCI (yes/suspected versus no), the sensitivity was 84% for neuropsychologists, 64% for cognitive neurologists and 62% for residents. The sensitivity using the complex scoring system was 92% in patients with mild AD and 69% in patients with aMCI. Conclusions A categorical rating of CDT shows high sensitivity for mild AD even in non-experienced raters. Neuropsychologists outperformed physicians in differentiating patients with aMCI from cognitively healthy older adults (specificity), which was counterbalanced by the lower specificity of their ratings. The diagnostic accuracy was not substantially improved by using complex scoring system. Copyright (C) 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30227 - Geriatrics and gerontology

Projekt

Výsledek vznikl pri realizaci vícero projektů. Více informací v záložce Projekty.

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

ISSN

0885-6230

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

32

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

9

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

933-939

Kód UT WoS článku

000409244800001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—