Razavi 2014.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient sampling | Consecutive sample from memory clinic plus patients from a neurology clinic. Sample was 'enriched' with cognitively normal control patients. 33 patients with comorbid medical conditions that could potentially affect cognition but were not dementias were excluded. |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | Mixed population from various referral pathways | ||
Index tests | AD‐8 | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | The study states that it uses "published criteria" but does not further operationalise | ||
Flow and timing | 33 patients with comorbid medical conditions that could potentially affect cognition but were not dementias were excluded. The timing of clinical and informant assessment is not clear. | ||
Comparative | |||
Notes | |||
Methodological quality | |||
Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Yes | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | Unclear | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | No | ||
High | High | ||
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Yes | ||
Low | Low | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Unclear | ||
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Yes | ||
Unclear | Low | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Unclear | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | No | ||
High |