Raza M Naqvi1, Sehrish Haider2, George Tomlinson2, Shabbir Alibhai2. 1. Department of Medicine (Naqvi), and Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (Haider), Western University, London, Ont.; Department of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Tomlinson, Alibhai), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. raza.naqvi@lhsc.on.ca. 2. Department of Medicine (Naqvi), and Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (Haider), Western University, London, Ont.; Department of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Tomlinson, Alibhai), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada has a growing multinational immigrant population. Many commonly used cognitive assessment tools have known cultural biases and are difficult to use in ethnically diverse patient populations. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) is a cognitive assessment tool that was created for culturally and linguistically diverse populations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the psychometric characteristics of the RUDAS and to compare it with other available tools. METHODS: We identified studies that assessed the psychometric properties of the RUDAS compared with a reference standard for diagnosing dementia or compared the RUDAS to other cognitive assessment tools. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full-text articles and reviewed bibliographies for further references. We extracted data using standardized forms and assessed studies for risk of bias. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 148 articles, from which 11 were included. The RUDAS was assessed in 1236 participants and was found to have a pooled sensitivity of 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.4-84.5) and a pooled specificity of 85.9% (95% CI 74.8-92.6) yielding a positive likelihood ratio of 5.5 (95% CI 2.9-10.7) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.40). A pooled estimate of the correlation between the RUDAS and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.81). Results of the RUDAS were less affected by language and education level than the MMSE. INTERPRETATION: The RUDAS is a brief and freely available cognitive assessment tool with reasonable psychometric characteristics that may be particularly useful in patients with diverse backgrounds.
BACKGROUND: Canada has a growing multinational immigrant population. Many commonly used cognitive assessment tools have known cultural biases and are difficult to use in ethnically diverse patient populations. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) is a cognitive assessment tool that was created for culturally and linguistically diverse populations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the psychometric characteristics of the RUDAS and to compare it with other available tools. METHODS: We identified studies that assessed the psychometric properties of the RUDAS compared with a reference standard for diagnosing dementia or compared the RUDAS to other cognitive assessment tools. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full-text articles and reviewed bibliographies for further references. We extracted data using standardized forms and assessed studies for risk of bias. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 148 articles, from which 11 were included. The RUDAS was assessed in 1236 participants and was found to have a pooled sensitivity of 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.4-84.5) and a pooled specificity of 85.9% (95% CI 74.8-92.6) yielding a positive likelihood ratio of 5.5 (95% CI 2.9-10.7) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.40). A pooled estimate of the correlation between the RUDAS and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.81). Results of the RUDAS were less affected by language and education level than the MMSE. INTERPRETATION: The RUDAS is a brief and freely available cognitive assessment tool with reasonable psychometric characteristics that may be particularly useful in patients with diverse backgrounds.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Joella E Storey; Jeffrey T J Rowland; David Basic; David A Conforti; Hugh G Dickson Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Alain Robillard; Angeles Garcia; Tiffany Chow; Michael Borrie; Hyman M Schipper; Mervin Blair; Andrew Kertesz; Howard Chertkow Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Miriam Goudsmit; Jos van Campen; Thelma Schilt; Chris Hinnen; Sanne Franzen; Ben Schmand Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra Date: 2018-08-29
Authors: Harriet A Hunt; Sanne Van Kampen; Yemisi Takwoingi; David J Llewellyn; Mark Pearson; Christopher J Hyde Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2017-06-02
Authors: Nilton Custodio; Rosa Montesinos; David Lira; Eder Herrera-Perez; Kristhy Chavez; Willyams Reynoso-Guzman; Maritza Pintado-Caipa; José Cuenca; Carlos Gamboa; Tatiana Metcalf Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Kenneth E Schmader; Christine K Liu; Theresa Harrington; Wes Rountree; Heidi Auerbach; Emmanuel B Walter; Elizabeth D Barnett; Elizabeth P Schlaudecker; Chris A Todd; Marek Poniewierski; Mary A Staat; Patricia Wodi; Karen R Broder Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Adrian Martinez-Ruiz; Rita Krishnamurthi; Ekta Singh Dahiya; Reshmi Rai-Bala; Sanjalin Naicker; Susan Yates; Claudia Rivera Rodriguez; Gary Cheung; Makarena Dudley; Ngaire Kerse; Sarah Cullum Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.390