ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
Comparison of two screening instruments to detect dementia in Indian elderly subjects in a clinical setting.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ascertain Dementia 8-item Questionnaire by participant and informant-A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Utility of Self-Rated vs. Informant-Rated Ascertain Dementia-8 for Detection of Early Cognitive Impairment: Experience of a "Real-World" Memory Clinic.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2026Article
- Review
- Personalized Dose Selection for Treatment of Patients with Neuropsychiatric Disorders Using tDCS.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Dementia ascertainment in India and development of nation-specific cutoffs: A machine learning and diagnostic analysis.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
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
objectiveCognitive screening in elderly patients receiving treatment for chronic medical conditions in a busy outpatient clinical setting is crucial to detect dementia at an earlier stage. Although Hindi Mini-Mental State Examination (HMSE) is an established screening tool for the geriatric population in India, but cannot be administered with the informant. Our study aims to compare two screening instruments, Informant based - Eight-item Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8) and HMSE among elderly patients attending medical outpatient service (OPD) in a tertiary care hospital.
methodA total of 776 subjects aged ≥65 years and receiving treatment from medicine OPD in a tertiary care hospital were screened for dementia using AD8 and HMSE. The clinical diagnosis was established after detailed clinical assessment using ICD-10 criterion. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for both screening tools and ROC curves were plotted considering ICD-10 diagnosis as the gold standard.
resultsComparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed that HMSE (AUC = 0.77) were better than AD8 (AUC = 0.61) in detecting dementia. Although increasing the cut-off value of AD8 from a recommended score of ≥2 to ≥3 improved sensitivity from 35% to 48.9%, high false-positive rate limited its utility as a cognitive screening tool.
conclusionAlthough AD8 is easy to use and quickly administered with either patient or informant, it does not seem to be a suitable cognitive screening test for Indian elderly with chronic medical disorders. HMSE at a cut-off score of ≤23 is able to find out dementia among geriatric patients in a busy medical setting.
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.