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 validation study

Authors :
Krishnamoorthy ES
Jacob KS
Huang Yueqin
Guerra Mariella
Ferri Cleusa P
Dewey Michael
Copeland John RM
Arizaga Raul
Albanese Emiliano
Acosta Daisy
Noriega L
Lopez A
de Rodriguez Juan
Prince Martin J
McKeigue Paul
Sousa Renata
Stewart Robert J
Salas Aquiles
Sosa Ana
Uwakwa Richard
Source :
BMC Public Health, Vol 8, Iss 1, p 219 (2008)
Publication Year :
2008
Publisher :
BMC, 2008.

Abstract

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.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14712458
Volume :
8
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
BMC Public Health
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.1d51eb7ce0a8454b8a7df029965cc55e
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-219