Narasimhalu 2008.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Patients were obtained from 2 sources: (1) Consecutive referrals to hospital dementia clinic (2) Participants in another study investigating cognition following stroke The study only included those who had completed an MMSE & IQCODE assessment |
||
Patient characteristics and setting | General hospital setting in Singapore; group (1) were referred to the dementia clinic; included 237 out of 695 evaluated. For group (2) 355 included out of 398 who received both tests from 843 total enrolled participants | ||
Index tests | IQCODE 16 item, Cantonese language | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Clinical dementia diagnosis using DSM‐IV | ||
Flow and timing | Unclear order of conduct of the index test and reference standard | ||
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? | No | ||
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? | High | ||
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | Yes | ||
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? | High risk | ||
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? | Unclear | ||
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? | Unclear | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Unclear | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | High risk |