4.6 Article

Characteristics of a two-stage screen for incident dementia

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 11, Pages 1038-1045

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00247-6

Keywords

receiver-operating characteristic analysis; sensitivity; specificity; dementia; mass screening; validation sample

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01AG11380] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [T32MH14592] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [T32MH014592] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG011380] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: To avoid costly evaluation of healthy individuals, efficient methods of screening for incident dementia must combine adequate sensitivity and high specificity. Two-stage screening may offer improvements over single-stage methods. We therefore investigated a two-stage screening protocol for incident dementia among 3,308 elderly. Methods: We administered the Modified Mini-Mental-State (3MS) or, rarely, Jorm's IQCODE, to a validation sample of 441 high-risk respondents. Informants then completed the Dementia Questionnaire (DQ). Finally, all 441 sample members underwent physical, neurologic, and neuropsychologic assessment. We studied the sensitivity and specificity of the 3MS/IQCODE and DQ using Receiver-Operating Characteristic analyses. Results: A 3MS cut point of 82/83 (of 100) yielded sensitivity and specificity of 91.5 and 90.1%. With 3MS scores of less than or equal to82, a DQ cut point of 2/3 (of five) yielded conditional sensitivity and specificity of 90.2 and 55.3%. Combining these instruments yielded sensitivity and specificity of 82.5 and 95.6%. Age stratification and use of longitudinal decline score criteria did not materially improve these figures. Conclusions: The improved specificity of the two-stage approach offers economies that are attractive, particularly if sensitivity can be enhanced, for example, by examination of a high-risk validation sample. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available