4.4 Article

A Simple Score to Predict Survival with Dementia in the General Population

Journal

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 20-28

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000346497

Keywords

Prognosis; Dementia; Cohort studies; Survival

Funding

  1. AGRICA
  2. Caisse Nationale de Solidarite pour l'Autonomie (CNSA)
  3. IPSEN
  4. Mutualite Sociale Agricole (MSA)
  5. Novartis Pharma (France)
  6. Sanofi-Synthelabo
  7. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  8. Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salaries
  9. Direction Generale de la Sante
  10. Conseils Regionaux of Aquitaine and Bourgogne
  11. Fondation Plan Alzheimer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: This study was designed to develop a practical risk score for predicting 5-year survival after the diagnosis of dementia. Methods: Using the Paquid Study (prospective, population-based, long-term cohort study), we created a prognosis score with incident cases of dementia and validated it in another prospective, population-based, long-term cohort study, the Three City Study. Results: Among the 3,777 subjects enrolled in the Paquid Study, 454 incident cases of dementia were included in this study. After a 5-year follow-up period, 319 (70.3%) were deceased. The score was constructed from three independent prognostic variables (gender, age at diagnosis and number of ADL restricted). The discriminant ability of the score was good with a c index of 0.754. Sensitivity was 64.7% and specificity 76.3%. In the validation cohort, the discriminant ability of the prognostic score with c statistics was 0.700. Sensitivity was 26.3% and specificity 95.4%. Conclusions: The prognostic factors selected in the predictive model are easily assessable, so this simple score could provide helpful information for the management of dementia, particularly to identify patients with duration of the disease greater than 5 years. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available