Borson 2005/2006.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Non‐random sampling of patients referred to University of Washington Alzheimer Disease Research Center Satellite by community service agencies and other outreach methods | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Heterogeneous community sample that was over‐represented with ethnic minority elderly. Patients with motor or sensory impairment precluding administration of cognitive screens were excluded. Patients with fragmentary outpatient records were excluded Participant age: unclear Gender: unclear Education: unclear Severity of cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease dementia: 112, no dementia:140 |
||
Index tests | Mini‐Cog derived from a larger neuropsychological test battery, the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instruments | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Clinical diagnosis of dementia based on the criteria of DSM‐IV, NINCDS‐ADRDA. Patients were evaluated by consensus process that excluded cognitive testing | ||
Flow and timing | Complete data on all patients | ||
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? | Unclear | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | Yes | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | No | ||
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? | High risk | ||
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? | Unclear | ||
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 | ||
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? | Low risk | ||
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? | Low concern | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | ||
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Unclear | ||
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | Low risk | ||
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? | Low concern | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Yes | ||
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | Yes | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Low risk |