ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Clinical history for diagnosis of dementia in men: Caerphilly Prospective Study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Finding of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia and Subsequent Care; Results of a Cluster RCT in Primary Care.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Cognitive tests to help diagnose dementia in symptomatic people in primary care and the community.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Review
- Towards improving diagnosis of memory loss in general practice: TIMeLi diagnostic test accuracy study protocol.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Dementia, screening, targets, and incentives: Primum non nocere.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of dementia often requires specialist referral and detailed, time-consuming assessments.
aimTo investigate the utility of simple clinical items that non-specialist clinicians could use, in addition to routine practice, to diagnose all-cause dementia syndrome. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study. Participants were identified from the electoral roll and general practice lists in Caerphilly and adjoining villages in South Wales, UK.
methodParticipants (1225 men aged 45-59 years) were screened for cognitive impairment using the Cambridge Cognitive Examination, CAMCOG, at phase 5 of the Caerphilly Prospective Study (CaPS). Index tests were a standardised clinical evaluation, neurological examination, and individual items on the Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Disorders in the Elderly (IQCODE).
resultsTwo-hundred and five men who screened positive (68%) and 45 (4.8%) who screened negative were seen, with 59 diagnosed with dementia. The model comprising problems with personal finance and planning had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 0.97), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 23.7 (95% CI = 5.88 to 95.6), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.41 (95% CI = 0.27 to 0.62). The best single item for ruling out was no problems learning to use new gadgets (LR- of 0.22, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.43).
conclusionThis study found that three simple questions have high utility for diagnosing dementia in men who are cognitively screened. If confirmed, this could lead to less burdensome assessment where clinical assessment suggests possible dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.