Siri 2006.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Participants were those referred to a geriatric clinic aged > 60 years, sampling frame unclear | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | Geriatric clinic attenders at a university hospital in Bangkok Thailand. 200 elderly people, divided into 100 'normal' and 100 'demential' | ||
Index tests | IQCODE 32 item, Thai language | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Clinical dementia diagnosis using DSM‐IV | ||
Flow and timing | Participants had to have an informant in order to be eligible. No report of how many potential participants compared with n = 200 (100 'normal', 100 'demential') Assessment of IQCODE conducted blinded to clinical diagnosis |
||
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? | Unclear | ||
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? | 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 |