Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28291801›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2017

Early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia through basic and instrumental activities of daily living: Development of a new evaluation tool.

Elise Cornelis, Ellen Gorus, Ingo Beyer, Ivan Bautmans, Patricia De Vriendt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Quantifying the Uncertainty and Risk Contributions of Activities of Daily Living Features in Dementia Prediction.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elise CornelisDepartment of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5341-5339
Ellen GorusDepartment of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Ingo BeyerDepartment of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5418-7048
Ivan BautmansDepartment of Geriatrics, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6820-9586
Patricia De VriendtFrailty in Ageing Research Group (FRIA), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4861-7838
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of activities of daily living (ADL) is paramount to determine impairment in everyday functioning and to ensure accurate early diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. Unfortunately, most common ADL tools are limited in their use in a diagnostic process. This study developed a new evaluation by adopting the items of the Katz Index (basic [b-] ADL) and Lawton Scale (instrumental [i-] ADL), defining them with the terminology of the International Classification of Human Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), adding the scoring system of the ICF, and adding the possibility to identify underlying causes of limitations in ADL. METHODS AND

findingsThe construct validity, interrater reliability, and discriminative validity of this new evaluation were determined. From 2015 until 2016, older persons (65-93 y) with normal cognitive ageing (healthy comparison [HC]) (n = 79), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 73), and Alzheimer disease (AD) (n = 71) underwent a diagnostic procedure for neurocognitive disorders at the geriatric day hospital of the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (Brussels, Belgium). Additionally, the ICF-based evaluation for b- and i-ADL was carried out. A global disability index (DI), a cognitive DI (CDI), and a physical DI (PDI) were calculated. The i-ADL-CDI showed high accuracy and higher discriminative power than the Lawton Scale in differentiating HC and MCI (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.895, 95% CI .840-.950, p = .002), MCI and AD (AUC = 0.805, 95% CI .805-.734, p = .010), and HC and AD (AUC = 0.990, 95% CI .978-1.000, p < .001). The b-ADL-DI showed significantly better discriminative accuracy than the Katz Index in differentiating HC and AD (AUC = 0.828, 95% CI .759-.897, p = .039). This study was conducted in a clinically relevant sample. However, heterogeneity between HC, MCI, and AD and the use of different methods of reporting ADL might limit this study.

conclusionsThis evaluation of b- and i-ADL can contribute to the diagnostic differentiation between cognitively healthy ageing and neurocognitive disorders in older age. This evaluation provides more clarity and nuance in assessing everyday functioning by using an ICF-based terminology and scoring system. Also, the possibility to take underlying causes of limitations into account seems to be valuable since it is crucial to determine the extent to which cognitive decline is responsible for functional impairment in diagnosing neurocognitive disorders. Though further prospective validation is still required, the i-ADL-CDI might be useful in clinical practice since it identifies impairment in i-ADL exclusively because of cognitive limitations.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumCognitive DysfunctionDementiaEarly DiagnosisFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID28291801
PMCPMC5349421
OpenAlexW2597330318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.