Herrer Abdulrahman1,2, Eva Jansen3, Marieke Hoevenaar-Blom4, Jan Willem van Dalen4, Lennard L van Wanrooij4, Emma van Bussel3, Willem A van Gool4,5, Edo Richard2,5, Eric P Moll van Charante4,5. 1. Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands h.abdulrahman@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Department of Neurology, Reinier Postlaan 4, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cognitive diagnostic work-up in primary care is not always physically feasible, owing to chronic disabilities and/or travel restrictions. The identification of dementia might be facilitated with diagnostic instruments that are time efficient and easy to perform, as well as useful in the remote setting. We assessed whether the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) might be a simple and accurate alternative for remote diagnostic cognitive screening in primary care. METHODS: We administered the TICS (range, 0-41) for 810 of 1,473 older people aged 84.5 (SD, 2.4) years. We scrutinized electronic health records for participants with TICS scores ≤30 and for a random sample of participants with TICS scores >30 for a dementia diagnosis using all data from the Prevention of Dementia by Intensive Vascular Care (preDIVA) trial for 8-12 years of follow-up. We used multiple imputation to correct for verification bias. RESULTS: Of the 810 participants, 155 (19.1%) had a TICS score ≤30, and 655 (80.9%) had a TICS score >30. Electronic health records yielded 8.4% (13/154) dementia diagnoses for participants with TICS ≤30 vs none with TICS >30. Multiple imputation for TICS >30 yielded a median of 7/655 (1.1%; interquartile range, 5-8) estimated dementia cases. After multiple imputation, the optimal cutoff score was ≤29, with mean sensitivity 65.4%, specificity 87.8%, positive predictive value 11.9%, negative predictive value 99.0%, and area under the curve 77.4% (95% CI, 56.3%-90.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present older population, the TICS performed well as a diagnostic screening instrument for excluding dementia and might be particularly useful when face-to-face diagnostic screening is not feasible in family practice or research settings. The potential reach to large numbers of people at low cost could contribute to more efficient medical management in primary care.
PURPOSE: Cognitive diagnostic work-up in primary care is not always physically feasible, owing to chronic disabilities and/or travel restrictions. The identification of dementia might be facilitated with diagnostic instruments that are time efficient and easy to perform, as well as useful in the remote setting. We assessed whether the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) might be a simple and accurate alternative for remote diagnostic cognitive screening in primary care. METHODS: We administered the TICS (range, 0-41) for 810 of 1,473 older people aged 84.5 (SD, 2.4) years. We scrutinized electronic health records for participants with TICS scores ≤30 and for a random sample of participants with TICS scores >30 for a dementia diagnosis using all data from the Prevention of Dementia by Intensive Vascular Care (preDIVA) trial for 8-12 years of follow-up. We used multiple imputation to correct for verification bias. RESULTS: Of the 810 participants, 155 (19.1%) had a TICS score ≤30, and 655 (80.9%) had a TICS score >30. Electronic health records yielded 8.4% (13/154) dementia diagnoses for participants with TICS ≤30 vs none with TICS >30. Multiple imputation for TICS >30 yielded a median of 7/655 (1.1%; interquartile range, 5-8) estimated dementia cases. After multiple imputation, the optimal cutoff score was ≤29, with mean sensitivity 65.4%, specificity 87.8%, positive predictive value 11.9%, negative predictive value 99.0%, and area under the curve 77.4% (95% CI, 56.3%-90.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present older population, the TICS performed well as a diagnostic screening instrument for excluding dementia and might be particularly useful when face-to-face diagnostic screening is not feasible in family practice or research settings. The potential reach to large numbers of people at low cost could contribute to more efficient medical management in primary care.
Authors: Andrea Bradford; Mark E Kunik; Paul Schulz; Susan P Williams; Hardeep Singh Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Steve Iliffe; Louise Robinson; Carol Brayne; Claire Goodman; Greta Rait; Jill Manthorpe; Peter Ashley Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Tamara G Fong; Michael A Fearing; Richard N Jones; Peilin Shi; Edward R Marcantonio; James L Rudolph; Frances M Yang; Dan K Kiely; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Teresa C Castanho; Liliana Amorim; Joseph Zihl; Joana A Palha; Nuno Sousa; Nadine C Santos Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.750