3.9 Article

The Bayer-Activities of Daily Living Scale (B-ADL) in the differentiation between mild to moderate dementia and normal aging

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE PSIQUIATRIA
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 350-353

出版社

ASSOC BRASILEIRA PSIQUIATRIA
DOI: 10.1590/S1516-44462006005000037

关键词

dementia; diagnosis; activities of daily living; MMSE; ageing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the applicability of the Bayer - Activities of Daily Living scale and its efficiency in differentiating individuals with mild to moderate dementia from normal elderly controls. Method: We selected 33 patients with diagnosis of mild to severe dementia, according to ICD-10 criteria, and 59 controls. All the subjects were evaluated with the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale and the Bayer - Activities of Daily Living scale was applied to informants. Results: The internal consistency of the Bayer - Activities of Daily Living was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.981). Mean Mini-Mental State Examination and Bayer - Activities of Daily Living scores of demented patients and controls were significantly different (p < 0,001). Mean Mini-Mental State Examination and Bayer - Activities of Daily Living scores were significantly different between Clinical Dementia Rating Scale 0 (controls; n = 59) versus Clinical Dementia Rating Scale I (mild dementia; - n = 15), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale 0 versus Clinical Dementia Rating Scale 2 (moderate dementia; n = 13), and for Clinical Dementia Rating Scale 1 versus Clinical Dementia Rating Scale 2 (p < 0.003). Discussion: The Bayer - Activities of Daily Living scale and Mini-Mental State Examination differentiated elderly controls from patients with mild or moderate dementia, and patients with mild dementia from those with moderate dementia. Conclusions: The results suggest that the Bayer - Activities of Daily Living scale applied to an informant can help in the diagnosis and follow-up of Brazilian patients with mild to moderate dementia.

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

3.9
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