33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The 10/66 Dementia Research Group's fully operationalised DSM-IV dementia computerized diagnostic algorithm, compared with the 10/66 dementia algorithm and a clinician diagnosis: a population validation study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The criterion for dementia implicit in DSM-IV is widely used in research but not fully operationalised. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group sought to do this using assessments from their one phase dementia diagnostic research interview, and to validate the resulting algorithm in a population-based study in Cuba.

          Methods

          The criterion was operationalised as a computerised algorithm, applying clinical principles, based upon the 10/66 cognitive tests, clinical interview and informant reports; the Community Screening Instrument for Dementia, the CERAD 10 word list learning and animal naming tests, the Geriatric Mental State, and the History and Aetiology Schedule – Dementia Diagnosis and Subtype. This was validated in Cuba against a local clinician DSM-IV diagnosis and the 10/66 dementia diagnosis (originally calibrated probabilistically against clinician DSM-IV diagnoses in the 10/66 pilot study).

          Results

          The DSM-IV sub-criteria were plausibly distributed among clinically diagnosed dementia cases and controls. The clinician diagnoses agreed better with 10/66 dementia diagnosis than with the more conservative computerized DSM-IV algorithm. The DSM-IV algorithm was particularly likely to miss less severe dementia cases. Those with a 10/66 dementia diagnosis who did not meet the DSM-IV criterion were less cognitively and functionally impaired compared with the DSMIV confirmed cases, but still grossly impaired compared with those free of dementia.

          Conclusion

          The DSM-IV criterion, strictly applied, defines a narrow category of unambiguous dementia characterized by marked impairment. It may be specific but incompletely sensitive to clinically relevant cases. The 10/66 dementia diagnosis defines a broader category that may be more sensitive, identifying genuine cases beyond those defined by our DSM-IV algorithm, with relevance to the estimation of the population burden of this disorder.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Construct validity in psychological tests.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dementia diagnosis in developing countries: a cross-cultural validation study.

              Research into dementia is needed in developing countries. Assessment of variations in disease frequency between regions might enhance our understanding of the disease, but methodological difficulties need to be addressed. We aimed to develop and test a culturally and educationally unbiased diagnostic instrument for dementia. In a multicentre study, the 10/66 Dementia Research Group interviewed 2885 people aged 60 years and older in 25 centres, most in Universities, in India, China and southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa. 729 had dementia and three groups were free of dementia: 702 had depression, 694 had high education (as defined by each centre), and 760 had low education (as defined by each centre). Local clinicians diagnosed dementia and depression. An interviewer, masked to dementia diagnosis, administered the geriatric mental state, the community screening instrument for dementia, and the modified Consortium to Establish a Registry of Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) ten-word list-learning task. Each measure independently predicted a diagnosis of dementia. In an analysis of half the sample, an algorithm derived from all three measures gave better results than any individual measure. Applied to the other half of the sample, this algorithm identified 94% of dementia cases with false-positive rates of 15%, 3%, and 6% in the depression, high education, and low education groups, respectively. Our algorithm is a sound basis for culturally and educationally sensitive dementia diagnosis in clinical and population-based research, supported by translations of its constituent measures into most languages used in the developing world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central
                1471-2458
                2008
                24 June 2008
                : 8
                : 219
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Section of Epidemiology, Health Services Research, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK
                [2 ]Facultad de Medicina Finley-Albarran, Medical University of Havana, Cuba
                [3 ]University Policlinic "19 de Abril", Havana, Cuba
                [4 ]Community Mental Health Centre, Marianao, Havana, Cuba
                [5 ]Universidad Nacional Pedro Henriquez Ureña (UNPHU), John F Kennedy Avenue, Internal Medicine Department, Geriatric Section, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
                [6 ]Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology Unit, Neuraxis Institute – Neurological Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [7 ]University of Liverpool, 6 Stanley Road, Hoylake Wirral, CH47 1HW, UK
                [8 ]Psychogeriatric Unit, National Institute of Mental Health "Honorio Delgado Hideyo Noguchi", José Galvez Barrenechea Avenue # 274. Department 401. Corpac -SAN ISIDRO Lima, Perú
                [9 ]Peking University, Institute of Mental Health. # 51 Hua Yuan Bei Road Haidian District Beijing, 100083, PR China
                [10 ]Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
                [11 ]Srinivasan Centre for Clinical Neurosciences. The Institute of Neurological Sciences, Voluntary Health Services, Taramani, Chennai, India
                [12 ]Public Health Sciences/Molecular Medicine Centre, MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, UK
                [13 ]Medicine Department, Caracas University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela
                [14 ]The Cognition and Behavior Unit, National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery of Mexico, Av. Insurgentes # 3877, Col. La Fama, ZIP Code 14269, Delegacion Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico
                [15 ]Dept. of Mental Health, Namdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Anambra State, Nigeria
                Article
                1471-2458-8-219
                10.1186/1471-2458-8-219
                2474864
                18577205
                b5ea3924-fbf4-4869-a98a-ec08a6154903
                Copyright © 2008 Prince et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 2 November 2007
                : 24 June 2008
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article