BACKGROUND: The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) score is commonly used, although the utility regarding this score in staging dementia severity is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of CDR-SOB scores in staging dementia severity compared with the global CDR score. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Texas Alzheimer's Research Consortium minimum data set cohort. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1577 participants (110 controls, 202 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 1265 patients with probable Alzheimer disease) were available for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated from a derivation sample to determine optimal cutoff scores and ranges, which were then applied to the validation sample. RESULTS: Optimal ranges of CDR-SOB scores corresponding to the global CDR scores were 0.5 to 4.0 for a global score of 0.5, 4.5 to 9.0 for a global score of 1.0, 9.5 to 15.5 for a global score of 2.0, and 16.0 to 18.0 for a global score of 3.0. When applied to the validation sample, kappa scores ranged from 0.86 to 0.94 (P < .001 for all), with 93.0% of the participants falling within the new staging categories. CONCLUSIONS: The CDR-SOB score compares well with the global CDR score for dementia staging. Owing to the increased range of values, the CDR-SOB score offers several advantages over the global score, including increased utility in tracking changes within and between stages of dementia severity. Interpretive guidelines for CDR-SOB scores are provided.
BACKGROUND: The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) score is commonly used, although the utility regarding this score in staging dementia severity is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of CDR-SOB scores in staging dementia severity compared with the global CDR score. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Texas Alzheimer's Research Consortium minimum data set cohort. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1577 participants (110 controls, 202 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 1265 patients with probable Alzheimer disease) were available for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated from a derivation sample to determine optimal cutoff scores and ranges, which were then applied to the validation sample. RESULTS: Optimal ranges of CDR-SOB scores corresponding to the global CDR scores were 0.5 to 4.0 for a global score of 0.5, 4.5 to 9.0 for a global score of 1.0, 9.5 to 15.5 for a global score of 2.0, and 16.0 to 18.0 for a global score of 3.0. When applied to the validation sample, kappa scores ranged from 0.86 to 0.94 (P < .001 for all), with 93.0% of the participants falling within the new staging categories. CONCLUSIONS: The CDR-SOB score compares well with the global CDR score for dementia staging. Owing to the increased range of values, the CDR-SOB score offers several advantages over the global score, including increased utility in tracking changes within and between stages of dementia severity. Interpretive guidelines for CDR-SOB scores are provided.
Authors: R S Doody; J C Stevens; C Beck; R M Dubinsky; J A Kaye; L Gwyther; R C Mohs; L J Thal; P J Whitehouse; S T DeKosky; J L Cummings Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-05-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Michael Grundman; Ronald C Petersen; Steven H Ferris; Ronald G Thomas; Paul S Aisen; David A Bennett; Norman L Foster; Clifford R Jack; Douglas R Galasko; Rachelle Doody; Jeffrey Kaye; Mary Sano; Richard Mohs; Serge Gauthier; Hyun T Kim; Shelia Jin; Arlan N Schultz; Kimberly Schafer; Ruth Mulnard; Christopher H van Dyck; Jacobo Mintzer; Edward Y Zamrini; Deborah Cahn-Weiner; Leon J Thal Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2004-01
Authors: Robert Perneczky; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Katja Komossa; Timo Grimmer; Janine Diehl; Alexander Kurz Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Mert R Sabuncu; Randy L Buckner; Jordan W Smoller; Phil Hyoun Lee; Bruce Fischl; Reisa A Sperling Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Sarah T McCutcheon; Dingfen Han; Juan Troncoso; Vassilis E Koliatsos; Marilyn Albert; Constantine G Lyketsos; Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Lilah M Besser; Dawn P Gill; Sarah E Monsell; Willa Brenowitz; Dana H Meranus; Walter Kukull; Deborah R Gustafson Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2014 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Stephen T Moelter; Megan A Glenn; Sharon X Xie; Jesse Chittams; Christopher M Clark; Marianne Watson; Steven E Arnold Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2015 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Sid E O'Bryant; Leigh Johnson; Melissa Edwards; Holly Soares; Michael D Devous; Sarah Ross; Geoffrey Rohlfing; James Hall Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: K L Triebel; R Martin; H R Griffith; J Marceaux; O C Okonkwo; L Harrell; D Clark; J Brockington; A Bartolucci; Daniel C Marson Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 9.910