Trial reportAnnals of family medicine2018
Improving Prediction of Dementia in Primary Care.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating dementia risk in an African American population using the DCTclock.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Article
- Sex Differences in the Relation Between Subjective Memory Complaints, Impairments in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and Risk of Dementia.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Article
- The Effects of Social Activities and Living Arrangements on Cognitive Functions in Middle-aged and Elderly Adults: A Panel Study Using the 2006-2018 Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2021Article
- Benefits of VR Physical Exercise on Cognition in Older Adults with and without Mild Cognitive Decline: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Associations of Subjective Memory Complaints and Simple Memory Task Scores With Future Dementia in the Primary Care Setting.Annals of family medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is one of the most widely used instruments to screen for cognitive deficits; however, this instrument alone is not sensitive enough to detect early symptoms of dementia. We aimed to investigate whether additionally using the Visual Association Test (VAT) improves the predictive value of the MMSE score for development of dementia.
methodsAnalyses were based on data from 2,690 primary care patients aged 70 to 78 years who participated in the Prevention of Dementia by Intensive Vascular Care (preDIVA) trial. We assessed change in the 30-point MMSE score over 2 years and the VAT score at 2 years-dichotomized as perfect (6 points) or imperfect (≤5 points)-and evaluated the predictive values of these tests for a diagnosis of dementia in the subsequent 4 to 6 years. Data were analyzed with logistic regression analysis.
resultsPatients having a decline of 2 points or more in total MMSE score over 2 years had an odds ratio of 3.55 (95% CI, 2.51-5.00) for developing dementia. Patients having the same decline in MMSE score plus an imperfect VAT score had an odds ratio of 9.55 (95% CI, 5.89-15.41) for developing dementia. A 1-point decline in MMSE score increased odds of dementia only when the VAT score was imperfect. Dementia risk for patients with a 2- or 3-point decrease in MMSE score and a perfect VAT score did not differ significantly from the average risk of the cohort as a whole.
conclusionsAdministering the VAT in patients with a small decline on the MMSE over a 2-year period has substantial incremental value for identifying those at elevated risk for developing dementia. This simple test may help distinguish older adults who need further cognitive examination from those in whom a watchful waiting policy is justified.
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.