BACKGROUND: It was recently demonstrated that the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score can be used to accurately stage severity of Alzheimer dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, to our knowledge, the utility of those interpretive guidelines has not been cross-validated or applied to a heterogeneous sample of dementia cases. OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate the staging guidelines proposed in a previous study using the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) database. DESIGN: The previously published cut scores were applied to the NACC sample and diagnostic accuracy estimates obtained. Next, analyses were restricted to NACC participants with a CDR global score (CDR-GS) of 0.5 and receiver operating characteristic curves generated to determine optimal CDR-SB cut scores for distinguishing MCI from very early dementia. SETTING: The 2008 NACC uniform data set. PARTICIPANTS: There were 12 462 participants (5115 controls; 2551 patients with MCI; 4796 patients with dementia, all etiologies) in the NACC data set used for the current analysis. Main Outcome Measure Accurate prediction of diagnoses (MCI or dementia) using the CDR-SB score. RESULTS: The previously proposed CDR-SB ranges successfully classified the vast majority of patients across all impairment ranges with a kappa of 0.91 and 94% overall correct classification rate. Additionally, the CDR-SB score discriminated between patients diagnosed with MCI and dementia when CDR-GS was restricted to 0.5 (overall area under the curve = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: These findings cross-validate the previously published CDR-SB interpretative guidelines for staging dementia severity and extend those findings to a large heterogeneous sample of patients with dementia. Additionally, the CDR-SB scores distinguished MCI from dementia in patients with reasonable accuracy when CDR-GS was restricted to 0.5.
BACKGROUND: It was recently demonstrated that the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score can be used to accurately stage severity of Alzheimer dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, to our knowledge, the utility of those interpretive guidelines has not been cross-validated or applied to a heterogeneous sample of dementia cases. OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate the staging guidelines proposed in a previous study using the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) database. DESIGN: The previously published cut scores were applied to the NACC sample and diagnostic accuracy estimates obtained. Next, analyses were restricted to NACCparticipants with a CDR global score (CDR-GS) of 0.5 and receiver operating characteristic curves generated to determine optimal CDR-SB cut scores for distinguishing MCI from very early dementia. SETTING: The 2008 NACC uniform data set. PARTICIPANTS: There were 12 462 participants (5115 controls; 2551 patients with MCI; 4796 patients with dementia, all etiologies) in the NACC data set used for the current analysis. Main Outcome Measure Accurate prediction of diagnoses (MCI or dementia) using the CDR-SB score. RESULTS: The previously proposed CDR-SB ranges successfully classified the vast majority of patients across all impairment ranges with a kappa of 0.91 and 94% overall correct classification rate. Additionally, the CDR-SB score discriminated between patients diagnosed with MCI and dementia when CDR-GS was restricted to 0.5 (overall area under the curve = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: These findings cross-validate the previously published CDR-SB interpretative guidelines for staging dementia severity and extend those findings to a large heterogeneous sample of patients with dementia. Additionally, the CDR-SB scores distinguished MCI from dementia in patients with reasonable accuracy when CDR-GS was restricted to 0.5.
Authors: Sid E O'Bryant; Stephen C Waring; C Munro Cullum; James Hall; Laura Lacritz; Paul J Massman; Philip J Lupo; Joan S Reisch; Rachelle Doody Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-08
Authors: C A Lynch; C Walsh; A Blanco; M Moran; R F Coen; J B Walsh; B A Lawlor Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Malaz Boustani; Christopher M Callahan; Frederick W Unverzagt; Mary G Austrom; Anthony J Perkins; Bridget A Fultz; Siu L Hui; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tarja H Välimäki; Janne A Martikainen; Kristiina Hongisto; Saku Väätäinen; Harri Sintonen; Anne M Koivisto Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brandon E Gavett; Vanessa Vudy; Mary Jeffrey; Samantha E John; Ashita S Gurnani; Jason W Adams Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Stephanie Behrens; Gail B Rattinger; Sarah Schwartz; Joshua Matyi; Chelsea Sanders; M Scott DeBerard; Constantine G Lyketsos; JoAnn T Tschanz Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.878
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