Back to Search Start Over

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 validati.

Authors :
Prince, Martin J.
Rodriguez, Juan Llibre de
Noriega, L.
Lopez, A.
Acosta, Daisy
Albanese, Emiliano
Arizaga, Raul
Copeland, John R. M.
Dewey, Michael
Ferri, Cleusa P.
Guerra, Mariella
Yueqin Huang
Jacob, K. S.
Krishnamoorthy, E. S.
McKeigue, Paul
Sousa, Renata
Stewart, Robert J.
Salas, Aquiles
Sosa, Ana Luisa
Uwakwa, Richard
Source :
BMC Public Health. 2008, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p219-230. 12p. 6 Charts.
Publication Year :
2008

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14712458
Volume :
8
Issue :
1
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
BMC Public Health
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
51485367