Table 2.
Study | Scales | Population | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Bourke et al. (1995)21 | Shulman et al. (1993), Mendez et al. (1992)×CAMCOG and the pentagon drawing |
AD (n=77) | Good reliability but with high false-negatives. |
Heinik et al. (2002)47 | Shulman et al. (1993), Freedman et al. (1994)×CAMCOG e MMSE |
AD (n=49) | Good correlation between the CDT and the CAMCOG in mild AD. Poor correlation between Freedman and MMSE and CAMCOG in CDR 2 patients |
Heinik et al.(2003)48 | Freedman et al. (1994)×CAMCOG and MMSE | Dementia (n=88) Depression and anxiety
disorders (n=26) |
Good correlation between the CDT, MMSE and the CAMCOGCDT plus MMSE were almost as good as the CAMCOG |
Heinik et al. (2004)16 | Shulman et al. (1993), Freedman et al. (1994), CAMCOG scale×CAMCOG and MMSE |
AD (n=52)VD (n=36)Depression and anxiety
disorders (n=26) |
Good correlation between the CDT and the MMSE and CAMCOG. |
Van der Burg et al. (2004)49 | Shulman et al. (1993), CAMCOG scale×CAMDEX |
Dementia (n=387)Controls (n=86) | Weak reliability with Shulman scale. Low specificity in both scales. |
AD, Alzheimer's disease; CDT, Clock Drawing Test; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination.