4.5 Article

Validation of the revised Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-R) for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia in a Japanese population

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 28-37

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610211001190

关键词

Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination revised; mild cognitive impairment; dementia; Japanese; validation study

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  2. Zikei Institute of Psychiatry
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21591517, 24591714] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Early detection of dementia will be important for implementation of disease-modifying treatments in the near future. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the revised Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-R J) for identifying mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Methods: We translated and adapted the original ACE-R for use with a Japanese population. Standard tests for evaluating cognitive decline and dementing disorders were applied. A total of 242 subjects (controls = 73, MCI = 39, dementia = 130) participated in this study. Results: The optimal cut-off scores of ACE-R J for detecting MCI and dementia were 88/89 (sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.92) and 82/83 (sensitivity 0.99, specificity 0.99) respectively. ACE-R J was superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination in the detection of MCI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.952 vs. 0.868), while the accuracy of the two instruments did not differ significantly in identifying dementia (AUC: 0.999 vs. 0.993). The inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.999), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.883), and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.903) of ACE-R J were excellent. Conclusion: ACE-R J proved to be an accurate cognitive instrument for detecting MCI and mild dementia. Further neuropsychological evaluation is required for the differential diagnosis of dementia subtypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据