ArticleDementia & neuropsychologia
Accuracy of two prognostic indexes to predict mortality in older adults with advanced dementia.
Article in Dementia & neuropsychologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting hospice eligibility among dementia patients using language models.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dementia is a cause of disability among older adults. Accessing advanced dementia prognosis is a challenge. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Charlson and Carey indexes in predicting 3-year survival of older adults with advanced dementia. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 238 patients aged ≥60 years with advanced dementia from an outpatient clinic and classified as stage ≥6A by using the Functional Assessment Staging scale. We excluded patients with missing data. We reviewed the semi-structured interview (clinical, sociodemographic, and functional data) from the baseline visit. This information was used to calculate 3-year mortality risks according to the Charlson and Carey indexes. We used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the associations of all-cause mortality with both indexes, adjusted for sociodemographic variables. We used Harrell's C measure to determine the discrimination. We calculated the absolute differences between observed and predicted 3-year mortality risks for each index for calibration. Results: In 238 patients, the average age was 80.5±7.8 years, with 36% being men. The median follow-up time was 1.8 years (0.05-3.0). The 3-year all-cause mortality rate was 50% (119 deaths). The Carey index was associated with mortality, with one point increase related to a 15% increase in the mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]=1.15, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.06-1.25, p=0.001), even after adjustment. Accuracy for the Charlson index and Carey index was 0.55 (95%CI 0.49-0.60) and 0.60 (95%CI 0.52-0.62), respectively, with no difference between them (p=0.44). Conclusions: Both indexes had poor discrimination and calibration performances in predicting 3-year mortality in patients with advanced 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.