Suzanne M Dyer1, Kate Laver1, Margeret Friel2, Craig Whitehead1, Maria Crotty1. 1. Department of Rehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, School of Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, and; NHMRC Partnership Centre in Cognitive and Functional Decline, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Alzheimer's Australia Consumer Dementia Research Network, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of evidence for the accuracy of the Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (KICA) tool in supporting the diagnosis of dementia in Indigenous Australian populations. METHODS: Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy studies of the KICA with an appropriate reference standard published to November 2015 were included. Comparison to an alternative cognitive assessment tool was required in non-remote populations. Case control analyses were excluded. RESULTS: Four studies were included: one of the KICA-Cog and KICA-Carer, one of the KICA Screen, and two of the modified-KICA. All tools developed for remote populations had a sensitivity of ≥76% and a specificity of ≥71% for the diagnosis of dementia. The KICA-Cog and KICA-Carer conducted in series had the highest sensitivity and specificity (91% and 94% respectively). In an urban and regional population, the mKICA had similar accuracy to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99 vs 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99). Key risk of bias limitations related to lack of pre-determined cut-points and population selection methods. CONCLUSION: The use of the KICA in remote Indigenous Australians may assist in timely diagnosis of dementia in this population. Using the KICA-Cog and KICA-Carer in series may maximise specificity, decreasing false positive results without compromising sensitivity.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of evidence for the accuracy of the Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (KICA) tool in supporting the diagnosis of dementia in Indigenous Australian populations. METHODS: Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy studies of the KICA with an appropriate reference standard published to November 2015 were included. Comparison to an alternative cognitive assessment tool was required in non-remote populations. Case control analyses were excluded. RESULTS: Four studies were included: one of the KICA-Cog and KICA-Carer, one of the KICA Screen, and two of the modified-KICA. All tools developed for remote populations had a sensitivity of ≥76% and a specificity of ≥71% for the diagnosis of dementia. The KICA-Cog and KICA-Carer conducted in series had the highest sensitivity and specificity (91% and 94% respectively). In an urban and regional population, the mKICA had similar accuracy to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99 vs 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99). Key risk of bias limitations related to lack of pre-determined cut-points and population selection methods. CONCLUSION: The use of the KICA in remote Indigenous Australians may assist in timely diagnosis of dementia in this population. Using the KICA-Cog and KICA-Carer in series may maximise specificity, decreasing false positive results without compromising sensitivity.