Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29045636›Full record

SynthesisFamily practice2018

The diagnostic accuracy of the Ascertain Dementia 8 questionnaire for detecting cognitive impairment in primary care in the community, clinics and hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hsin-Hao Chen, Fang-Ju Sun, Tzu-Lin Yeh, Hsueh-Erh Liu, Hsiu-Li Huang, Benjamin Ing-Tiau Kuo, Hsin-Yi Huang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. AD-8 for detection of dementia across a variety of healthcare settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

7 authors.

Hsin-Hao ChenFamily Medicine Department, Hsinchu MacKay Memorial Hospital, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Fang-Ju SunDepartment of Medical Research, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tzu-Lin YehFamily Medicine Department, Hsinchu MacKay Memorial Hospital, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Hsueh-Erh LiuDegree Program in Healthcare Industry, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Li HuangDepartment of Long-Term Care, College of Health Technology, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan.
Benjamin Ing-Tiau KuoLaboratory of Epidemiology and Biostatics, Department of Medical Research, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsin-Yi HuangLaboratory of Epidemiology and Biostatics, Department of Medical Research, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of cognitive impairment is increasing due to the aging population, and early detection is essential clinically. The Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8) questionnaire is a brief informant-based measure recently developed to assess early cognitive impairment, however, its overall diagnostic performance is controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the AD8 for cognitive impairment. Methods: All relevant studies were collected from databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to April 2017. We used QUADAS-2 to assess the methodological quality after the systematic search. The accuracy data and potential confounding variables were extracted from the eligible studies which included those in English and non-English. All analyses were performed using the Midas module in Stata 14.0 and Meta-DiSc 1.4 software. Results: Seven relevant studies including 3728 subjects were collected, and classified into two subgroups according to the severity of cognitive impairment. The overall sensitivity (0.72, 0.91) was superior to specificity (0.67, 0.78). The pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.17, 0.13) was better than the positive likelihood ratio (2.52, 3.94). The areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.83 and 0.92, respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed that location (community versus non-community) may be the source of heterogeneity. The average administration time was less than 3 minutes. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the AD8 is a competitive tool for clinically screening cognitive impairment and has an optimal administration time in the busy primary care setting. Subjects with an AD8 score ≧2 should be highly suspected to have cognitive impairment and a further definite diagnosis is needed.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesCognitive DysfunctionDementiaEarly DiagnosisHumansPrimary Health CareROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29045636
PMCPMC5965102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.