Abstract
Objective
To test the hypothesis that the efficacy of 2 simple questions commonly used in clinical
practice, asking the age and year of birth of individuals, will be satisfactory to
rule out cases of dementia.
Design
Population-based, longitudinal, prospective study focused on the incidence of dementia.
In the baseline, a 2-phase procedure for identifying cases and noncases of dementia
was implemented.
Setting
Zaragoza, Spain.
Participants
Individuals 65 years or older without previous diagnoses of dementia (n = 3613) drawn
from the population-based random sample of the ZARADEMP project.
Measurements
Standardized instruments were used, including the Geriatric Mental State (GMS) and
the History and Aetiological Schedule (HAS); cases were diagnosed according to DSM-IV
criteria (“reference standard”). The simple cognitive test used in this study consists
of the following 2 compulsory questions: “How old are you?” and “What year were you
born?”
Results
The test was well accepted by the participants and took less than 30 seconds to complete.
Compared with the “reference standard,” validity coefficients for incorrect answers
in both questions were as follows: sensitivity 61.2%, specificity 97.8%, positive
predictive value 44.4%, negative predictive value 98.9%.
Conclusions
This ultra-short test has very good specificity and negative predictive power. Its
use to rule out cases of dementia might be generalized, as it has the best efficiency
reported to date.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of the American Medical Directors AssociationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Grand challenges in global mental health.Nature. 2011; 475: 27-30
- Advanced dementia: State of the art and priorities for the next decade.Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 45-51
- Incidence and lifetime risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease in a Southern European population.Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011; 124: 372-383
- Dementia risk prediction in the population: Are screening models accurate?.Nat Rev Neurol. 2010; 6: 318-326
- Public health planning for dementia must start now.Lancet Neurol. 2012; 11: 477
- Access to diagnostic evaluation and treatment for dementia in Europe.Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007; 22: 47-54
- There is no evidence base for proposed dementia screening.BMJ. 2012; 345: e8588
Screening for Dementia, Topic Page. June 2003. US Preventive Services Task Force. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsdeme.htm. Accessed March 19, 2013.
- Dementia screening in primary care: Is it time?.JAMA. 2007; 298: 2409-2411
- Dementia assessment and management.J Am Med DirAssoc. 2007; 8: e89-e98
- Screening for dementia in primary care: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 927-937
- Primary care and dementia: 1. diagnosis, screening and disclosure.Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009; 24: 895-901
- Does this patient have dementia?.JAMA. 2007; 297: 2391-2394
- Dementia in acute hospital inpatients: The role of the geriatrician.Age Ageing. 2012; 41: 282-284
- Diagnosing dementia: No easy job.BMC Fam Pract. 2011; 12: 60
- Mini-Mental State. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.J Psychiatr Res. 1975; 12: 189-198
- Screening and case finding tools for the detection of dementia. Part I: Evidence-based meta-analysis of multidomain tests.Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010; 18: 759-782
- What is the best dementia screening instrument for general practitioners to use?.Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006; 14: 391-400
- Brief cognitive screening instruments: An update.Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010; 25: 111-120
- [Revalidation and standardization of the cognition mini-exam (first Spanish version of the Mini-Mental Status Examination) in the general geriatric population].Med Clin (Barc). 1999; 112 (Spanish): 767-774
- Screening and case-finding tools for the detection of dementia. Part II: Evidence-based meta-analysis of single-domain tests.Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010; 18: 783-800
- The ZARADEMP Project on the incidence, prevalence and risk factors of dementia (and depression) in the elderly community: II. Methods and first results.Eur J Psychiatry. 2005; 19: 40-54
- Range of mental illness amongst the elderly in the community: Prevalence in Liverpool using the GMS-AGECAT package.Br J Psychiatry. 1987; 150: 815-823
- The prevalence of dementia and depression in the elderly community in a southern European population. The Zaragoza study.Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995; 52: 497-506
- Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials.Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA2005
- Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies.Br J Gen Pract. 2007; 57: 144-151
- ACP Journal Club. The Mini-Cog had sensitivity similar to the longer 3MS for detecting cognitive impairment or dementia.Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: JC4-JC8
- Screening for dementia with the memory impairment screen.Neurology. 1999; 52: 231-238
- Screening for Alzheimer's disease: The memory impairment screen versus the conventional three-word memory test.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002; 50: 1086-10891
- Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM.3rd ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, Scotland2005
- A Systematic Evidence Review of the Signs and Symptoms of Dementia and Brief Cognitive Tests Available in VA.Department of Veterans Affairs (US), Washington, DC2010 (Available at:) (Accessed March 19, 2013)
- Principles and practice of mass screening for disease.WHO, Geneva1968
- Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study.Lancet. 2004; 364: 1421-1427
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 17, 2013
Footnotes
The authors designed and undertook the study, had full access to the raw data, did the analyses, wrote the report, and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The funder had no role in design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of the report.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
© 2013 American Medical Directors Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
