ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Clinician and Informant Report of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Dementia.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReports of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) from informants, often patients' caregivers and families, and from clinicians are both important for accurate detection of symptoms. However, informant/caregiver report and clinician assessments of NPS often differ.
methodsWe examined agreement between informant/caregiver and clinician report of NPS in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set. Participants were age ≥ 50 at baseline with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia (N = 27,225). At each visit, informants reported NPS using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory questionnaire (NPI-Q). Study clinicians provided clinical assessment per study protocol. Agreement between informant report and clinician judgment was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic. Associations between agreement in reporting for each NPS and participant/informant characteristics were examined using random-effects logistic regressions.
resultsAt baseline, participants were on average 72.9 ± 9.4 years old, 49% male, 76% non-Hispanic White, with 14.8 ± 3.6 years of schooling. Average follow-up was 4.0 ± 2.5 years. Informants were 63.7 ± 13.2 years old, 31% male, with 15.4 ± 2.8 years of schooling. 60% of informants were spouse/partner of the participant. Informants were more likely than clinicians to report the presence of all symptoms except for hallucinations. Agreement between informant and clinician reports of all symptoms was lower in patients with more severe dementia. Over time, agreement between informant and clinician reports of apathy increased. Agreement between informant and clinician reporting of NPS differed by participant's sex and race/ethnicity. Informants who had lower frequency of contact and more distant relationships with the participant were more likely to agree with clinicians' reporting.
conclusionsUnderstanding differences between informant and clinician reports of NPS in dementia is essential in obtaining a more complete, accurate picture of behavioral challenges patients face. Considering patient and informant characteristics and dynamics between them would help clinicians better understand potential biases that may affect the accuracy of reported NPS and better manage and treat the symptoms.
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.