五种认知筛选测试在大样本老年人中的表现比较。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jurij Dreo, Jan Jug, Tisa Pavlovčič, Ajda Ogrin, Anita Demšar, Barbara Aljaž, Filip Agatić, Uros Marusic
{"title":"五种认知筛选测试在大样本老年人中的表现比较。","authors":"Jurij Dreo, Jan Jug, Tisa Pavlovčič, Ajda Ogrin, Anita Demšar, Barbara Aljaž, Filip Agatić, Uros Marusic","doi":"10.1159/000540225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recent introductions of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease have re-invigorated the cause of early dementia detection. Cognitive \"paper and pencil\" tests represent the bedrock of clinical assessment, because they are cheap, easy to perform, and do not require brain imaging or biological testing. Cognitive tests vary greatly in duration, complexity, sociolinguistic biases, probed cognitive domains, and their specificity and sensitivity of detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Consequently, an ecologically valid head-to-head comparison seems essential for evidence-based dementia screening.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compared five tests: Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS), Addenbrooke's cognitive examination (ACE-III), euro-coin handling test (Eurotest), and image identification test (Phototest) on a large sample of seniors (N = 456, 77.9 ± 8 years, 71% females). Their specificity and sensitivity were estimated in a novel way by contrasting each test's outcome to the majority outcome across the remaining tests (comparative specificity and sensitivity calculation [CSSC]). This obviates the need for an a priori gold standard such as a clinically clear-cut sample of dementia/MCI/controls. We posit that the CSSC results in a more ecologically valid estimation of clinical performance while precluding biases resulting from different dementia/MCI diagnostic criteria and the proficiency in detecting these conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There exists a stark trade-off between behavioral test specificity and sensitivity. The test with the highest specificity had the lowest sensitivity, and vice versa. The comparative specificities and sensitivities were, respectively: Phototest (97%, 47%), Eurotest (94%, 55%), ADAS (90%, 68%), ACE-III (72%, 77%), MoCA (55%, 95%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assuming a CI prevalence of 10%, the shortest (∼3 min) and the simplest instrument, the Phototest, was shown to have the best overall performance (accuracy 92%, PPV 66%, NPV 94%).</p>","PeriodicalId":11126,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Performance of Five Cognitive Screening Tests in a Large Sample of Seniors.\",\"authors\":\"Jurij Dreo, Jan Jug, Tisa Pavlovčič, Ajda Ogrin, Anita Demšar, Barbara Aljaž, Filip Agatić, Uros Marusic\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000540225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recent introductions of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease have re-invigorated the cause of early dementia detection. Cognitive \\\"paper and pencil\\\" tests represent the bedrock of clinical assessment, because they are cheap, easy to perform, and do not require brain imaging or biological testing. Cognitive tests vary greatly in duration, complexity, sociolinguistic biases, probed cognitive domains, and their specificity and sensitivity of detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Consequently, an ecologically valid head-to-head comparison seems essential for evidence-based dementia screening.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compared five tests: Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS), Addenbrooke's cognitive examination (ACE-III), euro-coin handling test (Eurotest), and image identification test (Phototest) on a large sample of seniors (N = 456, 77.9 ± 8 years, 71% females). Their specificity and sensitivity were estimated in a novel way by contrasting each test's outcome to the majority outcome across the remaining tests (comparative specificity and sensitivity calculation [CSSC]). This obviates the need for an a priori gold standard such as a clinically clear-cut sample of dementia/MCI/controls. We posit that the CSSC results in a more ecologically valid estimation of clinical performance while precluding biases resulting from different dementia/MCI diagnostic criteria and the proficiency in detecting these conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There exists a stark trade-off between behavioral test specificity and sensitivity. The test with the highest specificity had the lowest sensitivity, and vice versa. The comparative specificities and sensitivities were, respectively: Phototest (97%, 47%), Eurotest (94%, 55%), ADAS (90%, 68%), ACE-III (72%, 77%), MoCA (55%, 95%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Assuming a CI prevalence of 10%, the shortest (∼3 min) and the simplest instrument, the Phototest, was shown to have the best overall performance (accuracy 92%, PPV 66%, NPV 94%).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540225\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540225","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:最近,针对阿尔茨海默病的疾病调整治疗方法的推出为早期痴呆症检测事业注入了新的活力。认知 "纸&amp;笔 "测试是临床评估的基石,因为它们便宜、易于操作,而且不需要脑成像或生物测试。认知测试在持续时间、复杂程度、社会语言偏差、测试的认知领域以及检测认知障碍(CI)的特异性和敏感性方面存在很大差异。因此,对基于证据的痴呆症筛查进行生态学上有效的正面比较似乎至关重要。方法 我们比较了五种测试:MoCA、ADAS、ACE-III、Eurotest 和 Phototest。通过将每项测试的结果与其余测试的大多数结果进行对比,以一种新颖的方式估算出它们的特异性和灵敏度(特异性和灵敏度比较计算 - CSSC)。这样就不需要先验的金标准,如临床上明确的痴呆/MCI/对照样本。我们认为,CSSC 可以对临床表现做出更符合生态学原理的估计,同时排除不同痴呆症/MCI 诊断标准和检测这些病症的熟练程度所造成的偏差。结果 行为测试的特异性和灵敏度之间存在着明显的权衡。特异性最高的测试灵敏度最低,反之亦然。特异性和敏感性的比较结果分别是照相测试(97%,47%)、欧洲测试(94%,55%)、ADAS(90%,68%)、ACE-III(72%,77%)、MoCA(55%,95%)。结论 假定 CI 患病率为 10%,最短(约 3 分钟)、最简单的工具--照相测试表明具有最佳的整体性能(准确率 92%、PPV 66%、NPV 94%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Performance of Five Cognitive Screening Tests in a Large Sample of Seniors.

Introduction: Recent introductions of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease have re-invigorated the cause of early dementia detection. Cognitive "paper and pencil" tests represent the bedrock of clinical assessment, because they are cheap, easy to perform, and do not require brain imaging or biological testing. Cognitive tests vary greatly in duration, complexity, sociolinguistic biases, probed cognitive domains, and their specificity and sensitivity of detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Consequently, an ecologically valid head-to-head comparison seems essential for evidence-based dementia screening.

Method: We compared five tests: Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS), Addenbrooke's cognitive examination (ACE-III), euro-coin handling test (Eurotest), and image identification test (Phototest) on a large sample of seniors (N = 456, 77.9 ± 8 years, 71% females). Their specificity and sensitivity were estimated in a novel way by contrasting each test's outcome to the majority outcome across the remaining tests (comparative specificity and sensitivity calculation [CSSC]). This obviates the need for an a priori gold standard such as a clinically clear-cut sample of dementia/MCI/controls. We posit that the CSSC results in a more ecologically valid estimation of clinical performance while precluding biases resulting from different dementia/MCI diagnostic criteria and the proficiency in detecting these conditions.

Results: There exists a stark trade-off between behavioral test specificity and sensitivity. The test with the highest specificity had the lowest sensitivity, and vice versa. The comparative specificities and sensitivities were, respectively: Phototest (97%, 47%), Eurotest (94%, 55%), ADAS (90%, 68%), ACE-III (72%, 77%), MoCA (55%, 95%).

Conclusion: Assuming a CI prevalence of 10%, the shortest (∼3 min) and the simplest instrument, the Phototest, was shown to have the best overall performance (accuracy 92%, PPV 66%, NPV 94%).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: As a unique forum devoted exclusively to the study of cognitive dysfunction, ''Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders'' concentrates on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信