ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
Utility of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale and INECO Frontal Screening for differentiating dementia subtypes between Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Time to dementia diagnosis is a major barrier to effective care, particularly in resource-limited settings such as Latin America. Barriers to timely dementia diagnosis include the lack of access to comprehensive neuropsychological testing, cognitive specialists, and advanced diagnostic tools. Brief cognitive assessments, such as the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) offer promise for diverse populations, and may help in specific dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD). Objective: This study evaluates the efficacy of RUDAS and IFS in comparison to the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE). Methods: A total of 243 participants (70 normal cognition Controls, 62 PD with normal cognition, 46 PDD, and 75 AD) were recruited as part of an observational cross-sectional study at a cognitive clinic in Peru. Diagnosis was based on clinical criteria and confirmed with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Participants underwent cognitive assessment using RUDAS, IFS, and MMSE. Results: Both RUDAS and IFS differentiated dementia from normal cognition groups with 100% specificity, compared to 53% for MMSE. The IFS identified early cognitive changes in PD (median score: PD = 24; Controls = 27, p < 0.001). RUDAS was particularly effective in distinguishing AD and PDD using the memory and visuospatial tasks. Conclusions: These results suggest that RUDAS and IFS can enable faster and clearer diagnoses for dementia subtypes, offering clinicians and community health workers practical tools to improve care in resource-limited settings where comprehensive evaluations are not always feasible.
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.