4.7 Article

The Vascular Impairment of Cognition Classification Consensus Study

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 624-633

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.10.007

关键词

Vascular cognitive impairment; Vascular dementia; Guidelines; Criteria; Consensus; Delphi

资金

  1. Alzheimer's Society (UK) [Ref117]
  2. Alzheimer's Society [117] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. British Heart Foundation [PG/10/47/28285] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K021931/1, EP/J017175/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G1100540, G0900652, G0500247, G0400074, G0502157] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. EPSRC [EP/K021931/1, EP/J017175/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. MRC [G0400074, G0502157, G0900652, G1100540, G0500247] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Numerous diagnostic criteria have tried to tackle the variability in clinical manifestations and problematic diagnosis of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) but none have been universally accepted. These criteria have not been readily comparable, impacting on clinical diagnosis rates and in turn prevalence estimates, research, and treatment. Methods: The Vascular Impairment of Cognition Classification Consensus Study (VICCCS) involved participants (81% academic researchers) from 27 countries in an online Delphi consensus study. Participants reviewed previously proposed concepts to develop new guidelines. Results: VICCCS had a mean of 122 (98-153) respondents across the study and a 67% threshold to represent consensus. VICCCS redefined VCI including classification of mild and major forms of VCI and subtypes. It proposes new standardized VCI-associated terminology and future research priorities to address gaps in current knowledge. Discussion: VICCCS proposes a consensus-based updated conceptualization of VCI intended to facilitate standardization in research. (C) 2016 the Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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