ArticleThe Journal of rheumatology2024
Validation of Different Dementia Code-Based Definitions in a Population-Based Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Article in The Journal of rheumatology, 2024. 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.
- Menopause status and its role in incident Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease severity, and overall mortality in women with RA.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2026Article
- Role of rheumatoid arthritis flare in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: a population-based cohort study.Scandinavian journal of rheumatology · 2025Article
- Sleep disorders in rheumatoid arthritis: Incidence, risk factors and association with dementia.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been associated with an elevated dementia risk. This study aimed to examine how different diagnostic dementia definitions perform in patients with RA compared to individuals without RA.
methodsThe study population included 2050 individuals (1025 with RA) from a retrospective, population-based cohort in southern Minnesota and compared the performance of 3 code-based dementia diagnostic algorithms with medical record review diagnosis of dementia. For the overall comparison, each patient's complete medical history was used, with no time frames. Sensitivity analyses were performed using 1-, 2-, and 5-year windows around the date that dementia was identified in the medical record (reference standard).
resultsAlgorithms performed very similarly in persons with and without RA. The algorithms generally had high specificity, negative predictive values, and accuracy, regardless of the time window studied (> 88%). Sensitivity and positive predictive values varied depending on the algorithm and the time window. Sensitivity values ranged 56.5-95.9%, and positive predictive values ranged 55.2-83.1%. Performance measures declined with more restrictive time windows.
conclusionRoutinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data were used to define code-based dementia diagnostic algorithms with good performance (vs diagnosis by medical record review). These results can inform future studies that use retrospective databases, especially in the same or a similar EHR infrastructure, to identify dementia in individuals with RA.
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.