Diana Matovic, Xiaojing Lei, Gabrielle Picard, Malene Ahern, Olivia R Maurice, Simon Willcock, Viviana M Wuthrich
{"title":"初级保健机构中痴呆风险筛查工具的系统评价。","authors":"Diana Matovic, Xiaojing Lei, Gabrielle Picard, Malene Ahern, Olivia R Maurice, Simon Willcock, Viviana M Wuthrich","doi":"10.1016/j.amepre.2025.108124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This preregistered (PROSPERO ID: 272529) systematic review analyzed the reliability, validity, acceptability, and feasibility of methods to screen and identify primary care patients at increased risk for dementia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inclusion criteria were studies of dementia risk screening methods applied, or designed for use, in primary care, or derived or validated with primary care data for use with community-dwelling adults (≥18 years) without dementia/cognitive impairment. Articles were limited to full text peer-reviewed studies published in English. Searches were conducted from database inception until 09.21.21/09.22.21 (updated 09.04.22, 09.16.24) in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and COCHRANE with backwards snowballing. Risk Of Bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies, the Cochrane ROB tool for randomized trials-V2, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven validated tools and scores were investigated in 34 studies. Participant numbers ranged from 100-94,000,000. Tools and scores were used or validated in one (six tools) to 13 studies (one tool). Most studies were from higher-income countries. ROB was low in most studies. C-statistics were most commonly used (range = .52-.86). Tools and scores generally had acceptable prediction but performed poorly in samples differing from the derivation sample. The CAIDE and LIBRA demonstrated acceptable validity in midlife samples, and the LIBRA in older samples <80 years of age.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The CAIDE and LIBRA are recommended for midlife and older adults <80 years, but further research is needed for adults ≥80 and lower-middle income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":50805,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Preventive Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"108124"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review of Dementia Risk Screening Tools in Primary Care Settings.\",\"authors\":\"Diana Matovic, Xiaojing Lei, Gabrielle Picard, Malene Ahern, Olivia R Maurice, Simon Willcock, Viviana M Wuthrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amepre.2025.108124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This preregistered (PROSPERO ID: 272529) systematic review analyzed the reliability, validity, acceptability, and feasibility of methods to screen and identify primary care patients at increased risk for dementia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inclusion criteria were studies of dementia risk screening methods applied, or designed for use, in primary care, or derived or validated with primary care data for use with community-dwelling adults (≥18 years) without dementia/cognitive impairment. Articles were limited to full text peer-reviewed studies published in English. Searches were conducted from database inception until 09.21.21/09.22.21 (updated 09.04.22, 09.16.24) in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and COCHRANE with backwards snowballing. Risk Of Bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies, the Cochrane ROB tool for randomized trials-V2, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven validated tools and scores were investigated in 34 studies. Participant numbers ranged from 100-94,000,000. Tools and scores were used or validated in one (six tools) to 13 studies (one tool). Most studies were from higher-income countries. ROB was low in most studies. C-statistics were most commonly used (range = .52-.86). Tools and scores generally had acceptable prediction but performed poorly in samples differing from the derivation sample. The CAIDE and LIBRA demonstrated acceptable validity in midlife samples, and the LIBRA in older samples <80 years of age.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The CAIDE and LIBRA are recommended for midlife and older adults <80 years, but further research is needed for adults ≥80 and lower-middle income countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50805,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Preventive Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"108124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Preventive Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2025.108124\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Preventive Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2025.108124","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Systematic Review of Dementia Risk Screening Tools in Primary Care Settings.
Introduction: This preregistered (PROSPERO ID: 272529) systematic review analyzed the reliability, validity, acceptability, and feasibility of methods to screen and identify primary care patients at increased risk for dementia.
Methods: Inclusion criteria were studies of dementia risk screening methods applied, or designed for use, in primary care, or derived or validated with primary care data for use with community-dwelling adults (≥18 years) without dementia/cognitive impairment. Articles were limited to full text peer-reviewed studies published in English. Searches were conducted from database inception until 09.21.21/09.22.21 (updated 09.04.22, 09.16.24) in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and COCHRANE with backwards snowballing. Risk Of Bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies, the Cochrane ROB tool for randomized trials-V2, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist.
Results: Eleven validated tools and scores were investigated in 34 studies. Participant numbers ranged from 100-94,000,000. Tools and scores were used or validated in one (six tools) to 13 studies (one tool). Most studies were from higher-income countries. ROB was low in most studies. C-statistics were most commonly used (range = .52-.86). Tools and scores generally had acceptable prediction but performed poorly in samples differing from the derivation sample. The CAIDE and LIBRA demonstrated acceptable validity in midlife samples, and the LIBRA in older samples <80 years of age.
Discussion: The CAIDE and LIBRA are recommended for midlife and older adults <80 years, but further research is needed for adults ≥80 and lower-middle income countries.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine is the official journal of the American College of Preventive Medicine and the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research. It publishes articles in the areas of prevention research, teaching, practice and policy. Original research is published on interventions aimed at the prevention of chronic and acute disease and the promotion of individual and community health.
Of particular emphasis are papers that address the primary and secondary prevention of important clinical, behavioral and public health issues such as injury and violence, infectious disease, women''s health, smoking, sedentary behaviors and physical activity, nutrition, diabetes, obesity, and substance use disorders. Papers also address educational initiatives aimed at improving the ability of health professionals to provide effective clinical prevention and public health services. Papers on health services research pertinent to prevention and public health are also published. The journal also publishes official policy statements from the two co-sponsoring organizations, review articles, media reviews, and editorials. Finally, the journal periodically publishes supplements and special theme issues devoted to areas of current interest to the prevention community.