SynthesisScandinavian journal of primary health care2020
Performance of the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia within a context similar to the Swedish primary healthcare sector: a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards a Multidimensional Model of Neurocognitive Disorders (MOND Model): Integrating Evidence from a Critical Review into a Model for Future Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Resting-State EEG Power Spectral Density Analysis Between Healthy and Cognitively Impaired Subjects.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDementia is a common but underdiagnosed health problem. Instruments developed for initial screening exist internationally but are not available within the Swedish primary healthcare sector. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia in identifying symptomatic dementia within a context similar to the Swedish primary healthcare sector.
designA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library and manually
resultsFive studies with a total of 13,345 participants were included. With sensitivity (88-100%), specificity (67-91%), positive and negative predictive values (28-63%; 96-100%) respectively, the results show that the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia has good ability to identify true positives, false negatives and predict low-risk dementia. That is, the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia has a greater ability to predict people who are at risk of not having dementia than to correctly identify those at risk of having dementia within the target population.
conclusionThe results show that the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia has the ability to identify persons with symptomatic dementia within the target population. Thus, an evaluation of its potential benefits should be considered and evaluated within the Swedish primary healthcare context. KEY POINTS Dementia is a common but underdiagnosed health problem. Instruments developed for initial screening exist but are not available within the Swedish primary healthcare sector. We found that the Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8), has the ability to identify individuals with symptomatic dementia within the target population. The Eight-item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8), has the potential to increase the possibility for timely detection of individuals with symptomatic 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.