Anna Dahl1, Stig Berg, Sven E Nilsson. 1. Institute of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden. daan@hhj.hj.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prevalence and incidence ratios of dementia in epidemiological studies vary according to the data source used. Medical records, cognitive tests, and registry information are sources frequently used to differentiate dementia from normal aging. The aim of the present study was to compare the identification of dementia from these different sources with that from consensus diagnosis. METHODS: 498 elderly people (age range 70-81 at baseline) enrolled in a Swedish population-based longitudinal twin study (Gender) were evaluated on physical and mental health and interviewed for their socio-demographic background three times during an eight-year period. Reviews of medical records and the Swedish Discharge Registry (DR) were conducted. The 10th percentile was used to differentiate between dementia and non-dementia in all cognitive tests. Scores of 24 or below on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (range 1-30) indicated dementia. A consensus conference diagnosed dementia on the basis of total information. The consensus diagnosis was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: MMSE scores (sensitivity 64%, specificity 96%, kappa 0.65) and the review of medical records (sensitivity 57%, specificity 99%, kappa 0.65) were good sources for dementia identification. The precision of medical records increased when recordings of cognitive impairment were included (sensitivity 83%, specificity 98%, kappa 0.84). The discharge registry had low sensitivity (26%) and kappa coefficient (0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that both review of medical records and MMSE scores are good although not perfect identifiers of dementia. The discharge registry is an uncertain source of dementia identification.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prevalence and incidence ratios of dementia in epidemiological studies vary according to the data source used. Medical records, cognitive tests, and registry information are sources frequently used to differentiate dementia from normal aging. The aim of the present study was to compare the identification of dementia from these different sources with that from consensus diagnosis. METHODS: 498 elderly people (age range 70-81 at baseline) enrolled in a Swedish population-based longitudinal twin study (Gender) were evaluated on physical and mental health and interviewed for their socio-demographic background three times during an eight-year period. Reviews of medical records and the Swedish Discharge Registry (DR) were conducted. The 10th percentile was used to differentiate between dementia and non-dementia in all cognitive tests. Scores of 24 or below on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (range 1-30) indicated dementia. A consensus conference diagnosed dementia on the basis of total information. The consensus diagnosis was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: MMSE scores (sensitivity 64%, specificity 96%, kappa 0.65) and the review of medical records (sensitivity 57%, specificity 99%, kappa 0.65) were good sources for dementia identification. The precision of medical records increased when recordings of cognitive impairment were included (sensitivity 83%, specificity 98%, kappa 0.84). The discharge registry had low sensitivity (26%) and kappa coefficient (0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that both review of medical records and MMSE scores are good although not perfect identifiers of dementia. The discharge registry is an uncertain source of dementia identification.
Authors: Diana Matallana; Cecilia de Santacruz; Carlos Cano; Pablo Reyes; Rafael Samper-Ternent; Kyriakos S Markides; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Carlos A Reyes-Ortiz Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Ulrika K Eriksson; Anna M Bennet; Margaret Gatz; Paul W Dickman; Nancy L Pedersen Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2010 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Anna Dahl; Linda B Hassing; Eleonor Fransson; Stig Berg; Margaret Gatz; Chandra A Reynolds; Nancy L Pedersen Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Eva Andersson; Anders Ekbom; Maria Feychting; Jeong-Lim Kim; Christina Reuterwall; Mona Heurgren; Petra Otterblad Olausson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sam T Creavin; Susanna Wisniewski; Anna H Noel-Storr; Clare M Trevelyan; Thomas Hampton; Dane Rayment; Victoria M Thom; Kirsty J E Nash; Hosam Elhamoui; Rowena Milligan; Anish S Patel; Demitra V Tsivos; Tracey Wing; Emma Phillips; Sophie M Kellman; Hannah L Shackleton; Georgina F Singleton; Bethany E Neale; Martha E Watton; Sarah Cullum Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-01-13
Authors: Hana Marie Broulikova; Marketa Arltova; Marie Kuklova; Tomas Formanek; Pavla Cermakova Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472