ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Reliability and validity analysis of the Chinese version of the Quick Dementia Rating System (QDRS).
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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.
- Digital Detection of Dementia in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Longitudinal blood pressure trajectories and tau-lipid biomarkers associated with dementia in hypertensive adults: Results from the population-based CRHCP cohort.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Validation of the Quick Dementia Rating System (QDRS): diagnostic properties and cutoff values.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) is one of the most common chronic diseases among the elderly. The Quick Dementia Rating System (QDRS) is a recognized cognitive assessment tool. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the Chinese version of the QDRS (C-QDRS) as an early screening tool for elderly individuals.
methodsThe QDRS was translated into Chinese and its reliability and validity were assessed. A total of 366 people were recruited for the study, and all participants completed comprehensive neuropsychological tests. For reliability analysis, internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. For validity analysis, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were carried out. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to evaluate the discriminative ability of the C-QDRS to identify cognitive impairment.
resultsC-QDRS scores increased progressively across groups: normal controls, objective subtle cognitive decline (obj-SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD. The C-QDRS demonstrated strong consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.923. The EFA showed a two-factor structure, and the CFA indicated that the model fit was satisfactory (χ
conclusionsThe C-QDRS is a precise and effective tool for screening both AD and preclinical AD in China.
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.