Tang 2003.
Study characteristics | |||
Patient Sampling | Consecutive admissions of first‐ever or recurrent stroke | ||
Patient characteristics and setting | 484 were admitted to the Acute Stroke Unit of a general teaching hospital in Hong Kong in the study period; n = 189 included | ||
Index tests | IQCODE 26 item, Chinese language | ||
Target condition and reference standard(s) | Clinical dementia diagnosis using DSM‐IV | ||
Flow and timing | Of 484 potential participants, 471 had an informant available. 95 were excluded due to their response to IQCODE items (> 20% scored 'I don't know'); 17 were excluded due to 'physical frailty' and 18 due to 'prolonged hospitalisation'. IQCODE assessment was performed independently from clinical assessment by a psychiatrist, both were conducted 3 months after index stroke. The clinical assessment was performed in outpatient clinic setting |
||
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? | Yes | ||
Was a case‐control design avoided? | Yes | ||
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Yes | ||
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? | Low 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? | No | ||
Could the patient flow have introduced bias? | High risk |