4.0 Article

Staging dementia using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes scores

Journal

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 8, Pages 1091-1095

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.65.8.1091

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG012300, P30AG12300] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) score is commonly used, although the utility regarding this score in staging dementia severity is not well established. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of CDR-SOB scores in staging dementia severity compared with the global CDR score. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Texas Alzheimer's Research Consortium minimum data set cohort. Participants: A total of 1577 participants (110 controls, 202 patients with mild cognitive impairment, and 1265 patients with probable Alzheimer disease) were available for analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated from a derivation sample to determine optimal cutoff scores and ranges, which were then applied to the validation sample. Results: Optimal ranges of CDR-SOB scores corresponding to the global CDR scores were 0.5 to 4.0 for a global score of 0.5, 4.5 to 9.0 for a global score of 1.0, 9.5 to 15.5 for a global score of 2.0, and 16.0 to 18.0 for a global score of 3.0. When applied to the validation sample, kappa scores ranged from 0.86 to 0.94 ( P < .001 for all), with 93.0% of the participants falling within the new staging categories. Conclusions: The CDR-SOB score compares well with the global CDR score for dementia staging. Owing to the increased range of values, the CDR-SOB score offers several advantages over the global score, including increased utility in tracking changes within and between stages of dementia severity. Interpretive guidelines for CDR-SOB scores are provided.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available