Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 14;2021(7):CD010860. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010860.pub3

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