优化痴呆筛查在社区居住的老年人:在新加坡简短的诊断工具的快速审查。

IF 2.5 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jun Pei Lim, Sabrina Lau, Penny Lun, Jia Ying Tang, Edwin Shih-Yen Chan, Luming Shi, Liang Guo, Yew Yoong Ding, Laura Tay, Reshma A Merchant, Wee Shiong Lim
{"title":"优化痴呆筛查在社区居住的老年人:在新加坡简短的诊断工具的快速审查。","authors":"Jun Pei Lim, Sabrina Lau, Penny Lun, Jia Ying Tang, Edwin Shih-Yen Chan, Luming Shi, Liang Guo, Yew Yoong Ding, Laura Tay, Reshma A Merchant, Wee Shiong Lim","doi":"10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Timely detection of dementia enables early access to dementia-specific care services and interventions. Various stakeholders brought together to refine Singapore's dementia care strategy identified a lack of a standardised cognitive screening tool and the absence of a comparative review of existing tools. We hence conducted a rapid review to evaluate the diagnostic performance of brief cognitive screening tools in identifying possible dementia among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Brief cognitive screening tools were defined as interviews or tests administered in ≤5 minutes. Studies performed in Singapore on older adults ≥60 years, which used locally-validated comparators and reported outcomes of clinician-diagnosed dementia were included. Rapid review methodology was used in study screening and selection. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. A negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of ≤0.2 was defined a priori as having a moderate effect in shifting post-test probability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis: 3 studies evaluated self-/informant-based tools only, 4 evaluated performance-based measures only and 7 evaluated combination approaches. Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8) was the most studied self-/ informant-based tool. One study found informant AD8 (iAD8) superior to self-rated AD8. Another study found iAD8 superior to Mini-Mental State Examination. Among performance-based measures, Abbreviated Mental Test, Visual Cognitive Assessment Test-Short form version 1 (VCAT-S1), VCAT-S2 and Mini-Cog had LR- <0.2. Minimal improvement of combination approaches compared to iAD8 alone was demonstrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our review suggests the limited utility of dementia screening in communities with low dementia prevalence and supports a case-finding approach instead. With a reliable informant, iAD8 alone has sufficient discriminant ability. Further research is needed to specifically assess the diagnostic ability of performance-based tools in community settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":502093,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","volume":"53 12","pages":"742-753"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimising dementia screening in community-dwelling older adults: A rapid review of brief diagnostic tools in Singapore.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Pei Lim, Sabrina Lau, Penny Lun, Jia Ying Tang, Edwin Shih-Yen Chan, Luming Shi, Liang Guo, Yew Yoong Ding, Laura Tay, Reshma A Merchant, Wee Shiong Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Timely detection of dementia enables early access to dementia-specific care services and interventions. Various stakeholders brought together to refine Singapore's dementia care strategy identified a lack of a standardised cognitive screening tool and the absence of a comparative review of existing tools. We hence conducted a rapid review to evaluate the diagnostic performance of brief cognitive screening tools in identifying possible dementia among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Brief cognitive screening tools were defined as interviews or tests administered in ≤5 minutes. Studies performed in Singapore on older adults ≥60 years, which used locally-validated comparators and reported outcomes of clinician-diagnosed dementia were included. Rapid review methodology was used in study screening and selection. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. A negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of ≤0.2 was defined a priori as having a moderate effect in shifting post-test probability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis: 3 studies evaluated self-/informant-based tools only, 4 evaluated performance-based measures only and 7 evaluated combination approaches. Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8) was the most studied self-/ informant-based tool. One study found informant AD8 (iAD8) superior to self-rated AD8. Another study found iAD8 superior to Mini-Mental State Examination. Among performance-based measures, Abbreviated Mental Test, Visual Cognitive Assessment Test-Short form version 1 (VCAT-S1), VCAT-S2 and Mini-Cog had LR- <0.2. Minimal improvement of combination approaches compared to iAD8 alone was demonstrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our review suggests the limited utility of dementia screening in communities with low dementia prevalence and supports a case-finding approach instead. With a reliable informant, iAD8 alone has sufficient discriminant ability. Further research is needed to specifically assess the diagnostic ability of performance-based tools in community settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":502093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore\",\"volume\":\"53 12\",\"pages\":\"742-753\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024163\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:及时发现痴呆症有助于及早获得针对痴呆症的护理服务和干预措施。各种利益相关者聚集在一起,完善新加坡的痴呆症护理战略,发现缺乏标准化的认知筛查工具,缺乏对现有工具的比较审查。因此,我们进行了一项快速回顾,以评估在新加坡社区居住的老年人中识别可能的痴呆的简短认知筛查工具的诊断性能。方法:简短的认知筛查工具定义为≤5分钟的访谈或测试。在新加坡进行的针对≥60岁老年人的研究,使用了当地验证的比较对象,并报告了临床诊断的痴呆结果。研究筛选和选择采用快速回顾方法。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估第2版工具进行偏倚风险评估。先验地定义负似然比(LR-)≤0.2为对转移检验后概率有中等影响。结果:14项研究被纳入定性综合:3项研究仅评估基于自我/信息的工具,4项研究仅评估基于绩效的措施,7项研究评估联合方法。8项信息者访谈(AD8)是研究最多的基于自我/信息者的工具。一项研究发现,被调查者的AD8 (iAD8)优于自评的AD8。另一项研究发现iAD8优于简易精神状态检查。在基于表现的测试中,简短智力测试、视觉认知评估测试-简短形式版本1 (VCAT-S1)、VCAT-S2和Mini-Cog具有LR。结论:我们的综述表明痴呆筛查在痴呆患病率低的社区的效用有限,支持病例发现方法。有了可靠的信息来源,iAD8本身就有足够的判别能力。需要进一步的研究来具体评估基于绩效的工具在社区环境中的诊断能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimising dementia screening in community-dwelling older adults: A rapid review of brief diagnostic tools in Singapore.

Introduction: Timely detection of dementia enables early access to dementia-specific care services and interventions. Various stakeholders brought together to refine Singapore's dementia care strategy identified a lack of a standardised cognitive screening tool and the absence of a comparative review of existing tools. We hence conducted a rapid review to evaluate the diagnostic performance of brief cognitive screening tools in identifying possible dementia among community-dwelling older adults in Singapore.

Method: Brief cognitive screening tools were defined as interviews or tests administered in ≤5 minutes. Studies performed in Singapore on older adults ≥60 years, which used locally-validated comparators and reported outcomes of clinician-diagnosed dementia were included. Rapid review methodology was used in study screening and selection. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. A negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of ≤0.2 was defined a priori as having a moderate effect in shifting post-test probability.

Results: Fourteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis: 3 studies evaluated self-/informant-based tools only, 4 evaluated performance-based measures only and 7 evaluated combination approaches. Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8) was the most studied self-/ informant-based tool. One study found informant AD8 (iAD8) superior to self-rated AD8. Another study found iAD8 superior to Mini-Mental State Examination. Among performance-based measures, Abbreviated Mental Test, Visual Cognitive Assessment Test-Short form version 1 (VCAT-S1), VCAT-S2 and Mini-Cog had LR- <0.2. Minimal improvement of combination approaches compared to iAD8 alone was demonstrated.

Conclusion: Our review suggests the limited utility of dementia screening in communities with low dementia prevalence and supports a case-finding approach instead. With a reliable informant, iAD8 alone has sufficient discriminant ability. Further research is needed to specifically assess the diagnostic ability of performance-based tools in community settings.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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