BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CAMCOG is a feasible cognitive screening instrument for dementia in patients with a recent stroke. A major disadvantage of the CAMCOG, however, is its lengthy and relatively complex administration for screening purposes. We therefore developed the Rotterdam CAMCOG (R-CAMCOG), based on the original version. Our aim was to reduce the estimated administration time to 15 minutes or less and to retain or perhaps even improve its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We analyzed the item scores on the CAMCOG of 300 consecutive stroke patients, after exclusion of patients with a severe aphasia or lowered consciousness level, who were entered in the Rotterdam Stroke Databank. The diagnosis of dementia was made independent of the R-CAMCOG score, on the basis of clinical examination and neuropsychological test results. The R-CAMCOG was constructed in 3 steps. First, items with floor and ceiling effects were removed. Next, subscales with no additional diagnostic value were excluded. Finally, we removed items that did not contribute to the homogeneity of the subscales. The diagnostic accuracy of the R-CAMCOG and the original CAMCOG was determined by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: In the 3 steps, the number of items was reduced from 59 to 25, divided over the subscales orientation, memory (recent, remote, and learning), perception, and abstraction. The subscale orientation did not reach significance in a logistic regression model but was included in the R-CAMCOG because of its high face validity in dementia screening. Internal validation with ROC analysis suggests that the R-CAMCOG and the CAMCOG are equally accurate in screening for poststroke dementia (area under the curve was 0.95 for both tests). CONCLUSIONS: The R-CAMCOG has overcome the disadvantages of the original CAMCOG. It is a promising, short, and easy-to-administer screening instrument for poststroke dementia. It seems to be sufficiently accurate for this purpose, but the test has yet to be validated in a separate, independent study.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CAMCOG is a feasible cognitive screening instrument for dementia in patients with a recent stroke. A major disadvantage of the CAMCOG, however, is its lengthy and relatively complex administration for screening purposes. We therefore developed the Rotterdam CAMCOG (R-CAMCOG), based on the original version. Our aim was to reduce the estimated administration time to 15 minutes or less and to retain or perhaps even improve its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We analyzed the item scores on the CAMCOG of 300 consecutive strokepatients, after exclusion of patients with a severe aphasia or lowered consciousness level, who were entered in the Rotterdam Stroke Databank. The diagnosis of dementia was made independent of the R-CAMCOG score, on the basis of clinical examination and neuropsychological test results. The R-CAMCOG was constructed in 3 steps. First, items with floor and ceiling effects were removed. Next, subscales with no additional diagnostic value were excluded. Finally, we removed items that did not contribute to the homogeneity of the subscales. The diagnostic accuracy of the R-CAMCOG and the original CAMCOG was determined by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: In the 3 steps, the number of items was reduced from 59 to 25, divided over the subscales orientation, memory (recent, remote, and learning), perception, and abstraction. The subscale orientation did not reach significance in a logistic regression model but was included in the R-CAMCOG because of its high face validity in dementia screening. Internal validation with ROC analysis suggests that the R-CAMCOG and the CAMCOG are equally accurate in screening for poststroke dementia (area under the curve was 0.95 for both tests). CONCLUSIONS: The R-CAMCOG has overcome the disadvantages of the original CAMCOG. It is a promising, short, and easy-to-administer screening instrument for poststroke dementia. It seems to be sufficiently accurate for this purpose, but the test has yet to be validated in a separate, independent study.
Authors: Breda Cullen; Brian O'Neill; Jonathan J Evans; Robert F Coen; Brian A Lawlor Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2006-12-18 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Wen-Jun Hong; Jing Tao; Alex W K Wong; Shan-Li Yang; Man-Tak Leung; Tatia M C Lee; Nele Demeyere; Stephen C L Lau; Chi-Wen Chien; Chetwyn C H Chan; Li-Dian Chen Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 3.411