Accuracy of telephone screening tools to identify dementia patients remotely: systematic review.

Charlotte Olivia Riley, Brian McKinstry, Karen Fairhurst
{"title":"Accuracy of telephone screening tools to identify dementia patients remotely: systematic review.","authors":"Charlotte Olivia Riley,&nbsp;Brian McKinstry,&nbsp;Karen Fairhurst","doi":"10.1177/20542704221115956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID19 pandemic highlighted the need for remote diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia. Telephone screening for dementia may facilitate prompt diagnosis and optimisation of care. However, it is not clear how accurate telephone screening tools are compared with face-to-face screening. We searched Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus for all English language papers published between January 1975 and February 2021 which compared telephone screening for dementia/ mild cognitive impairment and an in-person reference standard, performed within six-weeks. We subsequently searched paper reference lists and contacted authors if data were missing. Three reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Twenty-one studies including 944 participants were found. No one test appears more accurate, with similar validities as in-person testing. Cut-offs for screening differed between studies based on demographics and acceptability thresholds and meta-analysis was not appropriate. Overall the results suggest telephone screening is acceptably sensitive and specific however, given the limited data, this finding must be treated with some caution. It may not be suitable for those with hearing impairments and anxiety around technology. Few studies were carried out in general practice where most screening occurs and further research is recommended in such lower prevalence environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":17674,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Open","volume":"13 9","pages":"20542704221115956"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2f/ef/10.1177_20542704221115956.PMC9445501.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704221115956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The COVID19 pandemic highlighted the need for remote diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia. Telephone screening for dementia may facilitate prompt diagnosis and optimisation of care. However, it is not clear how accurate telephone screening tools are compared with face-to-face screening. We searched Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus for all English language papers published between January 1975 and February 2021 which compared telephone screening for dementia/ mild cognitive impairment and an in-person reference standard, performed within six-weeks. We subsequently searched paper reference lists and contacted authors if data were missing. Three reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Twenty-one studies including 944 participants were found. No one test appears more accurate, with similar validities as in-person testing. Cut-offs for screening differed between studies based on demographics and acceptability thresholds and meta-analysis was not appropriate. Overall the results suggest telephone screening is acceptably sensitive and specific however, given the limited data, this finding must be treated with some caution. It may not be suitable for those with hearing impairments and anxiety around technology. Few studies were carried out in general practice where most screening occurs and further research is recommended in such lower prevalence environments.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远程识别痴呆患者的电话筛查工具的准确性:系统评价
2019冠状病毒病大流行凸显了远程诊断认知障碍和痴呆症的必要性。电话筛查痴呆症可能有助于及时诊断和优化护理。然而,与面对面的筛查相比,电话筛查工具的准确性如何尚不清楚。我们检索了Cochrane、MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、PubMed和Scopus,检索了1975年1月至2021年2月期间发表的所有英文论文,这些论文比较了在六周内进行的痴呆症/轻度认知障碍电话筛查和现场参考标准。我们随后搜索论文参考文献列表,如果数据缺失,我们联系作者。三位审稿人独立筛选研究纳入,提取数据,并使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的关键评估工具的改编版本评估研究质量。共发现21项研究,944名参与者。没有一种测试比亲自测试更准确,具有相似的有效性。基于人口统计学和可接受阈值的研究之间筛选的截止值不同,荟萃分析不合适。总的来说,结果表明电话筛查的敏感性和特异性是可以接受的,然而,鉴于数据有限,必须谨慎对待这一发现。它可能不适合那些有听力障碍和对科技感到焦虑的人。在进行大多数筛查的一般实践中进行的研究很少,建议在这种低流行率环境中进行进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JRSM Open is a peer reviewed online-only journal that follows the open-access publishing model. It is a companion journal to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal publishes research papers, research letters, clinical and methodological reviews, and case reports. Our aim is to inform practice and policy making in clinical medicine. The journal has an international and multispecialty readership that includes primary care and public health professionals.
期刊最新文献
Providing personalised care for people with tuberculosis: an evaluation of enhanced case management in a UK TB Network 2013 to 2021. Redeployment experiences of healthcare workers in the UK during COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis from the nationwide UK-REACH study. Surgical reconstruction for spasticity and contracture: An underutilised rehabilitative strategy of adult stroke. Long COVID symptoms and demographic associations: A retrospective case series study using healthcare application data. Racial microaggressions within the UK Healthcare System: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1