Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:35:18.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case finding in dementia: comparative utility of three brief instruments in the memory clinic setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2011

Daniela C. Gonçalves ,
Elizabeth Arnold ,
Kana Appadurai  and
Gerard J. Byrne
Daniela C. Gonçalves
Affiliation:
Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Elizabeth Arnold
Affiliation:
Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Kana Appadurai
Affiliation:
Geriatric Medicine and Rehabilitation Services, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Gerard J. Byrne*
Affiliation:
Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Mental Health Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Gerard J. Byrne, Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, K Floor, Mental Health Centre, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston 4029 QLD, Australia. Phone: + 61 7 3365 5148; Fax: + 61 7 3365 5488. Email: d.goncalves@uqconnect.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The principal goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three brief instruments in memory clinic attendees. Two of the instruments were based on face-to-face clinical assessment (Standardized Mini-mental State Examination and Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale), whereas the third group used proxy information from an informant (Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly). Dementia diagnosis as provided by a specialist physician (geriatrician, psychiatrist or neurologist) was used as the reference standard.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Data were collected from 204 consecutive memory clinic attendees (M = 76.90, 56% female) and their family caregivers. Comparative utility was assessed through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

Results: One hundred and fifty-two patients (75%) were diagnosed as having dementia. Diagnostic accuracy, as indicated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), was similar for the three instruments as follows: SMMSE (AUC = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.76, 0.87, p < 0.0001) and RUDAS (AUC = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.77, 0.88, p < 0.0001), and slightly lower for IQCODE (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.83, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the areas under the curve (χ2 = 2.57, df = 2, p = 0.28).

Conclusions: Diagnostic accuracy was similar for the three instruments, which all proved to be moderately useful tools for initial screening for cognitive impairment in the memory clinic environment. Being a proxy measure, the IQCODE had specific practical use in this context, where the patient might not be able to provide information. The RUDAS exhibited high specificity and proved to be less dependent upon cultural factors than the SMMSE, making it particularly valuable in a multicultural setting.

Keywords

diagnostic accuracyIQCODE-SFscreeningRUDASSMMSE
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , June 2011 , pp. 788 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn, text revision. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Bédard, M., Molloy, D. W., Squire, L., Dubois, S., Lever, J. A. and O'Donnell, M. (2001). The Zarit Burden Interview: a new short version and screening version. Gerontologist, 41, 652–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bossuyt, P. M. et al. (2003). Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Clinical Radiology, 58, 575–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cullen, B., O'Neill, B., Evans, J. J., Coen, R. F. and Lawlor, B. A. (2007). A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 78, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading cognitive state of patients for clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelinas, I., Gauthier, L., McIntyre, M. and Gauthier, S. (1999). Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer's disease: the disability assessment for dementia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 471–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hancock, P. and Larner, A. J. (2009). Diagnostic utility of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) and its combination with the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) in a memory clinic-based population. International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 526–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsinger, T., Deveau, J., Boustani, M. and Williams, J. W. (2007). Does this patient have dementia? JAMA, 297, 2391–2404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoops, S. et al. (2009). Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease. Neurology, 73, 1738–1745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorm, A. F. (2004). The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): a review. International Psychogeriatrics, 16, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorm, A. F. and Korten, A. E. (1988). Assessment of cognitive decline in the elderly by informant interview. British Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonie, J. A., Tierney, K. M. and Ebmeier, K. P. (2009). Screening for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 902–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maeck, L., Haak, S., Knoblauch, A. and Stoppe, G. (2008). Dementia diagnostics in primary care: a representative 8-year follow-up study in Lower Saxony, Germany. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 25, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, F. I. and Barthel, D. (1965). Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 56–61.Google ScholarPubMed
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D. and Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease: Reports of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology, 34, 939–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metz, C. E. (1978). Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 8, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, A. J. (2009). A meta-analysis of the accuracy of the Mini-mental State Examination in the detection of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molloy, D. W., Alemayehu, E. and Roberts, R. (1991). Reliability of a standardized Mini-mental State Examination compared with the traditional Mini-mental State Examination. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 102–105.Google ScholarPubMed
Pachana, N. A., Byrne, G. J., Siddle, H., Koloski, N., Harley, E. and Arnold, E. (2007). Development and validation of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory. International Psychogeriatrics, 19, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, N. J. and Schisterman, E. F. (2006). The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163, 670–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, K. (2008). Psychometric measures of cognitive functioning in the elderly. In Jacoby, R., Oppenheimer, C., Dening, T. and Thomas, A. (eds.), Oxford Textbook of Old Age Psychiatry (pp. 117–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rowland, J. T., Basic, D., Storey, J. E. and Conforti, D. A. (2006). The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and the Folstein MMSE in a multicultural cohort of elderly persons. International Psychogeriatrics, 18, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, S. (1998). Modified Barthel Index. In Salek, S. (ed.), Compendium on Quality of Life Instruments. Boston: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Sheikh, J. I. and Yesavage, J. A. (1986). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version. In Brink, T. L. (ed.), Clinical Gerontology: A Guide to Assessment and Intervention (pp. 165–173). New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
StataCorp (2009). Statistical Software: Release 11.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar
Storey, J. E., Rowland, J. T., Basic, D. and Conforti, D. A. (2004). The Rowland Universal Assessment Dementia Scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale. International Psychogeriatrics, 16, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A., Caro, J. J., Kelley, H., Eggleston, A. and Molloy, W. (2002). Describing cognitive decline of patients at the mild or moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease using the standardized MMSE. International Psychogeriatrics, 14, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yesavage, J. A. et al. (1982). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3, 32–35.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zarit, S. H., Orr, N. K. and Zarit, J. M. (1985). The Hidden Victims of Alzheimer's Disease: Families under Stress. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Zweig, M. H. and Campbell, G. (1993). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry, 39, 561–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed