BACKGROUND: The telephone assessment of cognitive functions may reduce the cost and burden of epidemiological studies. METHODS: We validated the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified (TICS-m) using an extensive in-person assessment as the standard for comparison. Clinical diagnoses of normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were established by consensus of physician, nurse, and neuropsychological assessments. RESULTS: The extensive in-person assessment classified 83 persons with normal cognition, 42 persons with MCI, and 42 persons with dementia. There was considerable overlap in TICS-m scores among the three groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified < or = 31 as the optimal cutoff score to separate subjects with MCI from subjects with normal cognition (sensitivity = 71.4%; subjects with dementia excluded), and < or = 27 to separate subjects with dementia from subjects with MCI (sensitivity = 69.0%; subjects with normal cognition excluded). The TICS-m performed well when subjects with MCI were pooled either with subjects with dementia (sensitivity = 83.3%) or with subjects with normal cognition (sensitivity = 83.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the TICS-m performed well when using a dichotomous classification of cognitive status, it performed only fairly in separating MCI from either normal cognition or dementia. The TICS-m should not be used as a free-standing tool to identify subjects with MCI, and it should be used with caution as a tool to detect dementia. 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: The telephone assessment of cognitive functions may reduce the cost and burden of epidemiological studies. METHODS: We validated the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified (TICS-m) using an extensive in-person assessment as the standard for comparison. Clinical diagnoses of normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were established by consensus of physician, nurse, and neuropsychological assessments. RESULTS: The extensive in-person assessment classified 83 persons with normal cognition, 42 persons with MCI, and 42 persons with dementia. There was considerable overlap in TICS-m scores among the three groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified < or = 31 as the optimal cutoff score to separate subjects with MCI from subjects with normal cognition (sensitivity = 71.4%; subjects with dementia excluded), and < or = 27 to separate subjects with dementia from subjects with MCI (sensitivity = 69.0%; subjects with normal cognition excluded). The TICS-m performed well when subjects with MCI were pooled either with subjects with dementia (sensitivity = 83.3%) or with subjects with normal cognition (sensitivity = 83.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the TICS-m performed well when using a dichotomous classification of cognitive status, it performed only fairly in separating MCI from either normal cognition or dementia. The TICS-m should not be used as a free-standing tool to identify subjects with MCI, and it should be used with caution as a tool to detect dementia. 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Neill R Graff-Radford; Tanis J Ferman; John A Lucas; Heather K Johnson; Francine C Parfitt; Michael G Heckman; Murray Todd; Carl Sadowsky; Dawn E Epstein; Julia E Crook Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: W A Rocca; J H Bower; D M Maraganore; J E Ahlskog; B R Grossardt; M de Andrade; L J Melton Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-08-29 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David F Tang-Wai; David S Knopman; Yonas E Geda; Steven D Edland; Glenn E Smith; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Bradley F Boeve; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2003-12
Authors: Walter A Rocca; James H Bower; J Eric Ahlskog; Alexis Elbaz; Brandon R Grossardt; Shannon K McDonnell; Daniel J Schaid; Demetrius M Maraganore Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2007-10
Authors: Michal Schnaider Beeri; Perla Werner; Michael Davidson; James Schmidler; Jeremy Silverman Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; David S Knopman; Ruth H Cha; V Shane Pankratz; Bradley F Boeve; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Ronald C Petersen; Walter A Rocca Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: David T Liebers; Mehdi Pirooznia; Fayaz Seiffudin; Katherine L Musliner; Peter P Zandi; Fernando S Goes Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: R O Roberts; Y E Geda; D S Knopman; R H Cha; V S Pankratz; B F Boeve; E G Tangalos; R J Ivnik; W A Rocca; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kevin Duff; David Shprecher; Irene Litvan; Adam Gerstenecker; Benjamin Mast Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: David S Knopman; Rosebud O Roberts; V Shane Pankratz; Ruth H Cha; Walter A Rocca; Michelle M Mielke; Bradley F Boeve; Eric G Tangalos; Robert J Ivnik; Yonas E Geda; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Rosebud O Roberts; Lewis A Roberts; Yonas E Geda; Ruth H Cha; V Shane Pankratz; Helen M O'Connor; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Emily J Gilmore; Nicolas Gaspard; Huimahn A Choi; Emily Cohen; Kristin M Burkart; David H Chong; Jan Claassen; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Heather E Whitson; Diane Whitaker; Guy Potter; Eleanor McConnell; Fay Tripp; Linda L Sanders; Kelly W Muir; Harvey J Cohen; Scott W Cousins Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 7.389