Sikkes 2010.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | All consecutive patients diagnosed with probable AD, MCI (mild cognitive impairment) or SMC (subjective memory complaint) whose informant completed an IQCODE were included | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Alzheimer Centre at a University Hospital in the Netherlands; n = 328 | ||
Index tests | IQCODE 16 item, Dutch language | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Clinical dementia diagnosis using NINCDS‐ADRDA | ||
Flow and timing | 328 participants included ‐ no record given of numbers screened but not included. Informants completed IQCODE while participants were assessed for clinical diagnosis and this was done independently of IQCODE result |
||
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? | 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 | ||
Were all patients included in the analysis? | Yes | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | Low risk |