Is the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale useful in screening for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease? A systematic review.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Current Alzheimer research Pub Date : 2022-04-04 DOI:10.2174/1567205019666220404104854
Seong-Hi Park, Kuem-Sun Han
{"title":"Is the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale useful in screening for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease? A systematic review.","authors":"Seong-Hi Park, Kuem-Sun Han","doi":"10.2174/1567205019666220404104854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nMild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) are screened to distinguish whether cognitive decline in older adults is attributed to pathological causes rather than normal aging.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThe purpose of this review was to analyze the diagnostic performance of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) in screening for MCI and AD.\n\n\nMETHODS\nElectronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases using the following keywords: dementia and ADAS-Cog. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to checked the risk of bias in the diagnostic studies.\n\n\nRESULTS\nWe reviewed 14 studies, including 3,875 patients who met the selection criteria. In 2,624 MCI patients from nine studies, the pooled sensitivity of ADAS-Cog was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.88), the pooled specificity was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), and the area under the curve of summary receiver-operating characteristic curves (SROC AUC) was 0.89 (SE = 0.03). In 2,517 AD patients from 10 studies, the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) respectively, and the sROC AUC was 0.97 (SE = 0.01). Although sub-analyzed according to age and years of education, there was no significant difference in the predictive validity of the ADAS-Cog.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe ADAS-Cog has high predictive validity as a screening tool in both MCI and AD, but has better diagnostic performance in patients with AD. When early screening for AD is desired, ADAS-Cog is a first-stage screener that can be initially employed.","PeriodicalId":10810,"journal":{"name":"Current Alzheimer research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Alzheimer research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205019666220404104854","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) are screened to distinguish whether cognitive decline in older adults is attributed to pathological causes rather than normal aging. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this review was to analyze the diagnostic performance of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) in screening for MCI and AD. METHODS Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases using the following keywords: dementia and ADAS-Cog. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to checked the risk of bias in the diagnostic studies. RESULTS We reviewed 14 studies, including 3,875 patients who met the selection criteria. In 2,624 MCI patients from nine studies, the pooled sensitivity of ADAS-Cog was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.88), the pooled specificity was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), and the area under the curve of summary receiver-operating characteristic curves (SROC AUC) was 0.89 (SE = 0.03). In 2,517 AD patients from 10 studies, the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) respectively, and the sROC AUC was 0.97 (SE = 0.01). Although sub-analyzed according to age and years of education, there was no significant difference in the predictive validity of the ADAS-Cog. CONCLUSION The ADAS-Cog has high predictive validity as a screening tool in both MCI and AD, but has better diagnostic performance in patients with AD. When early screening for AD is desired, ADAS-Cog is a first-stage screener that can be initially employed.
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
阿尔茨海默病评估量表-认知亚量表在轻度认知障碍和阿尔茨海默病筛查中有用吗?系统回顾。
背景:对轻度认知障碍(MCI)和阿尔茨海默病(AD)进行筛查,以区分老年人的认知能力下降是否归因于病理原因而不是正常衰老。目的分析阿尔茨海默病评估量表-认知子量表(ADAS-Cog)在MCI和AD筛查中的诊断效果。方法在MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和PsycArticles数据库中进行电子检索,检索关键词为痴呆和ADAS-Cog。诊断准确性研究质量评估-2用于检查诊断研究的偏倚风险。结果我们回顾了14项研究,包括3875名符合选择标准的患者。在9项研究的2,624例MCI患者中,ADAS-Cog的合并敏感性为0.80(95%可信区间[CI], 0.68 ~ 0.88),合并特异性为0.84 (95% CI, 0.75 ~ 0.90),总接受者-工作特征曲线曲线下面积(SROC AUC)为0.89 (SE = 0.03)。在10项研究的2517例AD患者中,合并敏感性和合并特异性分别为0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95)和0.93 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95), sROC AUC为0.97 (SE = 0.01)。虽然根据年龄和受教育年限进行了亚分析,但ADAS-Cog的预测效度没有显著差异。结论ADAS-Cog作为MCI和AD的筛查工具具有较高的预测效度,但对AD患者的诊断效果更好。当需要对AD进行早期筛查时,ADAS-Cog是一种可初始使用的第一阶段筛查方法。
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
Current Alzheimer research
Current Alzheimer research 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Alzheimer Research publishes peer-reviewed frontier review, research, drug clinical trial studies and letter articles on all areas of Alzheimer’s disease. This multidisciplinary journal will help in understanding the neurobiology, genetics, pathogenesis, and treatment strategies of Alzheimer’s disease. The journal publishes objective reviews written by experts and leaders actively engaged in research using cellular, molecular, and animal models. The journal also covers original articles on recent research in fast emerging areas of molecular diagnostics, brain imaging, drug development and discovery, and clinical aspects of Alzheimer’s disease. Manuscripts are encouraged that relate to the synergistic mechanism of Alzheimer''s disease with other dementia and neurodegenerative disorders. Book reviews, meeting reports and letters-to-the-editor are also published. The journal is essential reading for researchers, educators and physicians with interest in age-related dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research provides a comprehensive ''bird''s-eye view'' of the current state of Alzheimer''s research for neuroscientists, clinicians, health science planners, granting, caregivers and families of this devastating disease.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to: Upregulation of Suppressor of Cytokine Signaling 3 in Microglia by Cinnamic Acid Comprehensive Insights into Pathophysiology of Alzheimer's Disease: Herbal Approaches for Mitigating Neurodegeneration The Postoperative Effects of Anesthesia Exposure on Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: A Narrative Review Post-Translational Modifications in Tau and Their Roles in Alzheimer's Pathology Evaluation and Characterization of Modified K114 Method to Localize Plaques in Rodent and Plaques and Tangles in Human Brain Tissue
×
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