4.2 Article

An Investigation of the Utility of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III in the Early Detection of Dementia in Memory Clinic Patients Aged over 75 Years

Journal

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
Volume 40, Issue 3-4, Pages 222-232

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000433522

Keywords

Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination; Screening; Diagnosis; Cognitive assessment; Alzheimer's disease; Vascular dementia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: To examine the validity of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACEIII) in detecting early dementia in UK memory clinic patients aged 75-85 years. Methods: The ACE-III was administered to 59 patients prior to diagnosis. The extent to which scores predicted the membership of the dementia or no-dementia group was explored using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and other parameters of diagnostic performance. Thirty-three participants (55.9%) were diagnosed with dementia (Alzheimer's disease = 56.3%, Alzheimer's disease with cerebrovascular disease = 31.3%, and vascular dementia = 12.5%). Results: The optimal cut-off for detecting dementia was 81/100 (scores <81 indicating dementia with a sensitivity of 0.79, a specificity of 0.96, and a positive predictive value of 0.96), with superiority over published cut-offs (88/100 and 82/100) at medium and lower prevalence rates. The number of years of full-time education had a significant positive relationship to total ACE-III scores (r = 0.697, p < 0.001) for the no-dementia group. Exploratory analysis indicated that optimal cut-offs were different for higher versus lower education groups. Conclusions: The ACE-III has excellent accuracy for the detection of dementia in day-to-day clinical practice. Lower cut-offs than those specified in the index paper, and the consideration of the patients' years of full-time education may be necessary for optimal diagnostic performance. (C) 2015 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available