Liver fibrosis stage based on the four factors (FIB-4) score or Forns index in adults with chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: The presence and severity of liver fibrosis are important prognostic variables when evaluating people with chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Although liver biopsy remains the reference standard, non-invasive serological markers, such as the four factors (FIB-4) score and the Forns index, can also be used to stage liver fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the FIB-4 score and Forns index in staging liver fibrosis in people with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) virus, using liver biopsy as the reference standard (primary objective). To compare the diagnostic accuracy of these tests for staging liver fibrosis in people with CHC and explore potential sources of heterogeneity (secondary objectives). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard Cochrane search methods for diagnostic accuracy studies (search date: 13 April 2022). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic cross-sectional or case-control studies that evaluated the performance of the FIB-4 score, the Forns index, or both, against liver biopsy, in the assessment of liver fibrosis in participants with CHC. We imposed no language restrictions. We excluded studies in which: participants had causes of liver disease besides CHC; participants had successfully been treated for CHC; or the interval between the index test and liver biopsy exceeded six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate model and calculated summary estimates. We evaluated the performance of both tests for three target conditions: significant fibrosis or worse (METAVIR stage ≥ F2); severe fibrosis or worse (METAVIR stage ≥ F3); and cirrhosis (METAVIR stage F4). We restricted the meta-analysis to studies reporting cut-offs in a specified range (+/-0.15 for FIB-4; +/-0.3 for Forns index) around the original validated cut-offs (1.45 and 3.25 for FIB-4; 4.2 and 6.9 for Forns index). We calculated the percentage of people who would receive an indeterminate result (i.e. above the rule-out threshold but below the rule-in threshold) for each index test/cut-off/target condition combination. MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 studies (with a total of 107,583 participants) from 28 countries, published between 2002 and 2021, in the qualitative synthesis. Of the 84 studies, 82 (98%) were cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy studies with cohort-based sampling, and the remaining two (2%) were case-control studies. All studies were conducted in referral centres. Our main meta-analysis included 62 studies (100,605 participants). Overall, two studies (2%) had low risk of bias, 23 studies (27%) had unclear risk of bias, and 59 studies (73%) had high risk of bias. We judged 13 studies (15%) to have applicability concerns regarding participant selection. FIB-4 score The FIB-4 score's low cut-off (1.45) is designed to rule out people with at least severe fibrosis (≥ F3). Thirty-nine study cohorts (86,907 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 81.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 75.6% to 85.6%), specificity of 62.3% (95% CI 57.4% to 66.9%), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.30 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.38). The FIB-4 score's high cut-off (3.25) is designed to rule in people with at least severe fibrosis (≥ F3). Twenty-four study cohorts (81,350 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 41.4% (95% CI 33.0% to 50.4%), specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 89.5% to 94.9%), and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5.6 (95% CI 4.4 to 7.1). Using the FIB-4 score to assess severe fibrosis and applying both cut-offs together, 30.9% of people would obtain an indeterminate result, requiring further investigations. We report the summary accuracy estimates for the FIB-4 score when used for assessing significant fibrosis (≥ F2) and cirrhosis (F4) in the main review text. Forns index The Forns index's low cut-off (4.2) is designed to rule out people with at least significant fibrosis (≥ F2). Seventeen study cohorts (4354 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 84.7% (95% CI 77.9% to 89.7%), specificity of 47.9% (95% CI 38.6% to 57.3%), and LR- of 0.32 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.41). The Forns index's high cut-off (6.9) is designed to rule in people with at least significant fibrosis (≥ F2). Twelve study cohorts (3245 participants) yielded a summary sensitivity of 34.1% (95% CI 26.4% to 42.8%), specificity of 97.3% (95% CI 92.9% to 99.0%), and LR+ of 12.5 (95% CI 5.7 to 27.2). Using the Forns index to assess significant fibrosis and applying both cut-offs together, 44.8% of people would obtain an indeterminate result, requiring further investigations. We report the summary accuracy estimates for the Forns index when used for assessing severe fibrosis (≥ F3) and cirrhosis (F4) in the main text. Comparing FIB-4 to Forns index There were insufficient studies to meta-analyse the performance of the Forns index for diagnosing severe fibrosis and cirrhosis. Therefore, comparisons of the two tests' performance were not possible for these target conditions. For diagnosing significant fibrosis and worse, there were no significant differences in their performance when using the high cut-off. The Forns index performed slightly better than FIB-4 when using the low/rule-out cut-off (relative sensitivity 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; P = 0.0573; relative specificity 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84; P = 0.002). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both the FIB-4 score and the Forns index may be considered for the initial assessment of people with CHC. The FIB-4 score's low cut-off (1.45) can be used to rule out people with at least severe fibrosis (≥ F3) and cirrhosis (F4). The Forns index's high cut-off (6.9) can be used to diagnose people with at least significant fibrosis (≥ F2). We judged most of the included studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of the body of evidence was low or very low, and more high-quality studies are needed. Our review only captured data from referral centres. Therefore, when generalising our results to a primary care population, the probability of false positives will likely be higher and false negatives will likely be lower. More research is needed in sub-Saharan Africa, since these tests may be of value in such resource-poor settings.

Anticholinergic deprescribing interventions for reducing risk of cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with and without prior cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergics are medications that block the action of acetylcholine in the central or peripheral nervous system. Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden. A high anticholinergic burden may cause cognitive impairment in people who are otherwise cognitively healthy, or cause further cognitive decline in people with pre-existing cognitive problems. Reducing anticholinergic burden through deprescribing interventions may help to prevent onset of cognitive impairment or slow the rate of cognitive decline. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective • To assess the efficacy and safety of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving cognitive outcomes in cognitively healthy older adults and older adults with pre-existing cognitive issues. Secondary Objectives • To compare the effectiveness of different types of reduction interventions (e.g. pharmacist-led versus general practitioner-led, educational versus audit and feedback) for reducing overall anticholinergic burden. • To establish optimal duration of anticholinergic reduction interventions, sustainability, and lessons learnt for upscaling • To compare results according to differing anticholinergic scales used in medication reduction intervention trials • To assess the efficacy of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving other clinical outcomes, including mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, and neurobehavioral outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL on 22 December 2022, and we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases from inception to 1 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people and that investigated cognitive outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we summarised them narratively. We used GRADE methods to rate our confidence in the review results. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with a total of 299 participants. All three trials were conducted in a cognitively mixed population (some cognitively healthy participants, some participants with dementia). Outcomes were assessed after one to three months. One trial reported significantly improved performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) in the intervention group (treatment difference 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.30), although there was no difference between the groups in the proportion of participants with reduced anticholinergic burden. Two trials successfully reduced anticholinergic burden in the intervention group. Of these, one reported no significant difference between the intervention versus control in terms of their effect on cognitive performance measured by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) immediate recall (mean between-group difference 0.54, 95% CI -0.91 to 2.05), CERAD delayed recall (mean between-group difference -0.23, 95% CI-0.85 to 0.38), CERAD recognition (mean between-group difference 0.77, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.94), and Mini-Mental State Examination (mean between-group difference 0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 1.75). The other trial reported a significant correlation between anticholinergic burden and a test of working memory after the intervention (which suggested reducing the burden improved performance), but reported no effect on multiple other cognitive measures. In GRADE terms, the results were of very low certainty. There were no reported between-group differences for any other clinical outcome we investigated. It was not possible to investigate differences according to type of reduction intervention or type of anticholinergic scale, to measure the sustainability of interventions, or to establish lessons learnt for upscaling. No trials investigated safety outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusions on the effects of anticholinergic burden reduction interventions on cognitive outcomes in older adults with or without prior cognitive impairment. The evidence from RCTs was of very low certainty so cannot support or refute the hypothesis that actively reducing or stopping prescription of medications with anticholinergic properties can improve cognitive outcomes in older people. There is no evidence from RCTs that anticholinergic burden reduction interventions improve other clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, or neurobehavioral outcomes. Larger RCTs investigating long-term outcomes are needed. Future RCTs should also investigate potential benefits of anticholinergic reduction interventions in cognitively healthy populations and cognitively impaired populations separately.

Clinical judgement by primary care physicians for the diagnosis of all-cause dementia or cognitive impairment in symptomatic people.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, general practitioners (GPs) unavoidably reach a clinical judgement about a patient as part of their encounter with patients, and so clinical judgement can be an important part of the diagnostic evaluation. Typically clinical decision making about what to do next for a patient incorporates clinical judgement about the diagnosis with severity of symptoms and patient factors, such as their ideas and expectations for treatment. When evaluating patients for dementia, many GPs report using their own judgement to evaluate cognition, using information that is immediately available at the point of care, to decide whether someone has or does not have dementia, rather than more formal tests. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical judgement for diagnosing cognitive impairment and dementia in symptomatic people presenting to primary care. To investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), and LILACs (BIREME) on 16 September 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected cross-sectional and cohort studies from primary care where clinical judgement was determined by a GP either prospectively (after consulting with a patient who has presented to a specific encounter with the doctor) or retrospectively (based on knowledge of the patient and review of the medical notes, but not relating to a specific encounter with the patient). The target conditions were dementia and cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment and dementia) and we included studies with any appropriate reference standard such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD), aetiological definitions, or expert clinical diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data separately with differences resolved by consensus discussion. We used QUADAS-2 to evaluate the risk of bias and concerns about applicability in each study using anchoring statements. We performed meta-analysis using the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18,202 potentially relevant articles, of which 12,427 remained after de-duplication. We assessed 57 full-text articles and extracted data on 11 studies (17 papers), of which 10 studies had quantitative data. We included eight studies in the meta-analysis for the target condition dementia and four studies for the target condition cognitive impairment. Most studies were at low risk of bias as assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool, except for the flow and timing domain where four studies were at high risk of bias, and the reference standard domain where two studies were at high risk of bias. Most studies had low concern about applicability to the review question in all QUADAS-2 domains. Average age ranged from 73 years to 83 years (weighted average 77 years). The percentage of female participants in studies ranged from 47% to 100%. The percentage of people with a final diagnosis of dementia was between 2% and 56% across studies (a weighted average of 21%). For the target condition dementia, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 34% to 91% and specificity ranged from 58% to 99%. In the meta-analysis for dementia as the target condition, in eight studies in which a total of 826 of 2790 participants had dementia, the summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners was sensitivity 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43% to 72%), specificity 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%), positive likelihood ratio 5.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.2), and negative likelihood ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.61). For the target condition cognitive impairment, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 58% to 97% and specificity ranged from 40% to 88%. The summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners in four studies in which a total of 594 of 1497 participants had cognitive impairment was sensitivity 84% (95% CI 60% to 95%), specificity 73% (95% CI 50% to 88%), positive likelihood ratio 3.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7), and negative likelihood ratio 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.40). It was impossible to draw firm conclusions in the analysis of heterogeneity because there were small numbers of studies. For specificity we found the data were compatible with studies that used ICD-10, or applied retrospective judgement, had higher reported specificity compared to studies with DSM definitions or using prospective judgement. In contrast for sensitivity, we found studies that used a prospective index test may have had higher sensitivity than studies that used a retrospective index test. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clinical judgement of GPs is more specific than sensitive for the diagnosis of dementia. It would be necessary to use additional tests to confirm the diagnosis for either target condition, or to confirm the absence of the target conditions, but clinical judgement may inform the choice of further testing. Many people who a GP judges as having dementia will have the condition. People with false negative diagnoses are likely to have less severe disease and some could be identified by using more formal testing in people who GPs judge as not having dementia. Some false positives may require similar practical support to those with dementia, but some - such as some people with depression - may suffer delayed intervention for an alternative treatable pathology.

Anticholinergic burden for prediction of cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric symptoms in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults with a pre-existing diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that a high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in people with dementia. Neuropsychiatric disturbances are the most frequent complication of dementia that require hospitalisation, accounting for almost half of admissions; hence, identification of modifiable prognostic factors for these outcomes is crucial. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, was a prognostic factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether anticholinergic burden was a prognostic factor for other adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, impaired physical function, and institutionalisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched these databases from inception to 29 November 2021: MEDLINE OvidSP, Embase OvidSP, PsycINFO OvidSP, CINAHL EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection on ISI Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies, with a minimum of one-month follow-up, which examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and the above stated adverse clinical outcomes, in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment. We summarised risk associations between anticholinergic burden and all clinical outcomes in a narrative fashion. We also evaluated the risk association between anticholinergic burden and mortality using a random-effects meta-analysis.  We established adjusted pooled rates for the anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria (102,684 older adults). Anticholinergic burden was measured using five distinct measurement scales: 12 studies used the ACB scale; 3 studies used the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition (AEC) Scale; and 2 studies used a list developed by Tune and Egeli.  Risk associations between anticholinergic burden and adverse clinical outcomes were highly heterogenous. Four out of 10 (40%) studies reported a significantly increased risk of greater long-term cognitive decline for participants with an anticholinergic burden compared to participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No studies investigated neuropsychiatric disturbance outcomes. One out of four studies (25%) reported a significant association with reduced physical function for participants with an anticholinergic burden versus participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No study (out of one investigating study) reported a significant association between anticholinergic burden and risk of institutionalisation. Six out of 10 studies (60%) found a significantly increased risk of mortality for those with an anticholinergic burden compared to those with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. Pooled analysis of adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HR) measured anticholinergic burden with the ACB scale, and suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high ACB score relative to those with no or minimal ACB scores (HR 1.153, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.030 to 1.292; 4 studies, 48,663 participants). An exploratory pooled analysis of adjusted mortality HRs across anticholinergic burden scales also suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high anticholinergic burden (HR 1.102, 95% CI 1.044 to 1.163; 6 studies, 68,381 participants).   Overall GRADE evaluation of results found low- or very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment who have a significant anticholinergic burden may be at increased risk of death. No firm conclusions can be drawn for risk of accelerated cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric disturbances, decline in physical function, or institutionalisation.

Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing engages the help of large numbers of people in tasks, activities or projects, usually via the internet. One application of crowdsourcing is the screening of citations for inclusion in a systematic review. There is evidence that a 'Crowd' of non-specialists can reliably identify quantitative studies, such as randomized controlled trials, through the assessment of study titles and abstracts. In this feasibility study, we investigated crowd performance of an online, topic-based citation-screening task, assessing titles and abstracts for inclusion in a single mixed-studies systematic review. METHODS: This study was embedded within a mixed studies systematic review of maternity care, exploring the effects of training healthcare professionals in intrapartum cardiotocography. Citation-screening was undertaken via Cochrane Crowd, an online citizen science platform enabling volunteers to contribute to a range of tasks identifying evidence in health and healthcare. Contributors were recruited from users registered with Cochrane Crowd. Following completion of task-specific online training, the crowd and the review team independently screened 9546 titles and abstracts. The screening task was subsequently repeated with a new crowd following minor changes to the crowd agreement algorithm based on findings from the first screening task. We assessed the crowd decisions against the review team categorizations (the 'gold standard'), measuring sensitivity, specificity, time and task engagement. RESULTS: Seventy-eight crowd contributors completed the first screening task. Sensitivity (the crowd's ability to correctly identify studies included within the review) was 84% (N = 42/50), and specificity (the crowd's ability to correctly identify excluded studies) was 99% (N = 9373/9493). Task completion was 33 h for the crowd and 410 h for the review team; mean time to classify each record was 6.06 s for each crowd participant and 3.96 s for review team members. Replicating this task with 85 new contributors and an altered agreement algorithm found 94% sensitivity (N = 48/50) and 98% specificity (N = 9348/9493). Contributors reported positive experiences of the task. CONCLUSION: It might be feasible to recruit and train a crowd to accurately perform topic-based citation-screening for mixed studies systematic reviews, though resource expended on the necessary customised training required should be factored in. In the face of long review production times, crowd screening may enable a more time-efficient conduct of reviews, with minimal reduction of citation-screening accuracy, but further research is needed.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the detection of dementia within community dwelling populations.

BACKGROUND: Various tools exist for initial assessment of possible dementia with no consensus on the optimal assessment method. Instruments that use collateral sources to assess change in cognitive function over time may have particular utility. The most commonly used informant dementia assessment is the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy will help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice, research and policy. OBJECTIVES: Our primary obective was to determine the accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE for detection of dementia within community dwelling populations. Our secondary objective was to describe the effect of heterogeneity on the summary estimates. We were particularly interested in the traditional 26-item scale versus the 16-item short form; and language of administration. We explored the effect of varying the threshold IQCODE score used to define 'test positivity'. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources on 28 January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources relevant or specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastrict and Leuven); DARE (York University); ARIF (Birmingham University). We used sensitive search terms based on MeSH terms and other controlled vocabulary. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in community settings that used (not necessarily exclusively) the IQCODE to assess for presence of dementia and, where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. Our intention with limiting the search to a 'community' setting was to include those studies closest to population level assessment. Within our predefined community inclusion criteria, there were relevant papers that fulfilled our definition of community dwelling but represented a selected population, for example stroke survivors. We included these studies but performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of these less representative populations on the summary results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. For quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) we used the QUADAS 2 tool. We included test accuracy data on the IQCODE used at predefined diagnostic thresholds. Where data allowed, we performed meta-analyses to calculate summary values of sensitivity and specificity with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pre-specified analyses to describe the effect of IQCODE format (traditional or short form) and language of administration for the IQCODE. MAIN RESULTS: From 16,144 citations, 71 papers described IQCODE test accuracy. We included 10 papers (11 independent datasets) representing data from 2644 individuals (n = 379 (14%) with dementia). Using IQCODE cut-offs commonly employed in clinical practice (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) the sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE for diagnosis of dementia across the studies were generally above 75%. Taking an IQCODE threshold of 3.3 (or closest available) the sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85); specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); positive likelihood ratio was 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 7.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.29). Comparative analysis suggested no significant difference in the test accuracy of the 16 and 26-item IQCODE tests and no significant difference in test accuracy by language of administration. There was little difference in sensitivity across our predefined diagnostic cut-points. There was substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses removing potentially unrepresentative populations in these studies made little difference to the pooled data estimates. The majority of included papers had potential for bias, particularly around participant selection and sampling. The quality of reporting was suboptimal particularly regarding timing of assessments and descriptors of reproducibility and inter-observer variability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Published data suggest that if using the IQCODE for community dwelling older adults, the 16 item IQCODE may be preferable to the traditional scale due to lesser test burden and no obvious difference in accuracy. Although IQCODE test accuracy is in a range that many would consider 'reasonable', in the context of community or population settings the use of the IQCODE alone would result in substantial misdiagnosis and false reassurance. Across the included studies there were issues with heterogeneity, several potential biases and suboptimal reporting quality.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the detection of dementia within a secondary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of dementia relies on the presence of new-onset cognitive impairment affecting an individual's functioning and activities of daily living. The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) is a questionnaire instrument, completed by a suitable 'informant' who knows the patient well, designed to assess change in functional performance secondary to cognitive change; it is used as a tool for identifying those who may have dementia. In secondary care there are two specific instances where patients may be assessed for the presence of dementia. These are in the general acute hospital setting, where opportunistic screening may be undertaken, or in specialist memory services where individuals have been referred due to perceived cognitive problems. To ensure an instrument is suitable for diagnostic use in these settings, its test accuracy must be established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE for detection of dementia in a secondary care setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources on the 28th of January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS Previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection (includes Conference Proceedings Citation Index) (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven); DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects - via the Cochrane Library); HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database via the Cochrane Library) and ARIF (Birmingham University). We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on IQCODE for dementia diagnosis to try to find additional studies. We developed a sensitive search strategy; search terms were designed to cover key concepts using several different approaches run in parallel and included terms relating to cognitive tests, cognitive screening and dementia. We used standardised database subject headings such as MeSH terms (in MEDLINE) and other standardised headings (controlled vocabulary) in other databases, as appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in secondary-care settings, which included (not necessarily exclusively) IQCODE to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. For the 'secondary care' setting we included all studies which assessed patients in hospital (e.g. acute unscheduled admissions, referrals to specialist geriatric assessment services etc.) and those referred for specialist 'memory' assessment, typically in psychogeriatric services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches, and reviewed abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. Two independent assessors checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool, and reporting quality using the STARD tool. MAIN RESULTS: From 72 papers describing IQCODE test accuracy, we included 13 papers, representing data from 2745 individuals (n = 1413 (51%) with dementia). Pooled analysis of all studies using data presented closest to a cut-off of 3.3 indicated that sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94); specificity 0.66 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75); the positive likelihood ratio was 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.22). There was a statistically significant difference in test accuracy between the general hospital setting and the specialist memory setting (P = 0.019), suggesting that IQCODE performs better in a 'general' setting. We found no significant differences in the test accuracy of the short (16-item) versus the 26-item IQCODE, or in the language of administration. There was significant heterogeneity in the included studies, including a highly varied prevalence of dementia (10.5% to 87.4%). Across the included papers there was substantial potential for bias, particularly around sampling of included participants and selection criteria, which may limit generalisability. There was also evidence of suboptimal reporting, particularly around disease severity and handling indeterminate results, which are important if considering use in clinical practice. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The IQCODE can be used to identify older adults in the general hospital setting who are at risk of dementia and require specialist assessment; it is useful specifically for ruling out those without evidence of cognitive decline. The language of administration did not affect test accuracy, which supports the cross-cultural use of the tool. These findings are qualified by the significant heterogeneity, the potential for bias and suboptimal reporting found in the included studies.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the detection of dementia within a general practice (primary care) setting.

BACKGROUND: The IQCODE (Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline in the Elderly) is a commonly used questionnaire based tool that uses collateral information to assess for cognitive decline and dementia. Brief tools that can be used for dementia "screening" or "triage" may have particular utility in primary care / general practice healthcare settings but only if they have suitable test accuracy. A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy in a primary care setting should help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice; research and policy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE, for detection of dementia in a primary care setting. SEARCH METHODS: A search was performed in the following sources on the 28th of January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS (Ovid SP), ISI Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), CINHAL (EBSCOhost) and LILACs (BIREME). We also searched sources specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven); DARE (York University); HTA Database (Health Technology Assessments Database via The Cochrane Library) and ARIF (Birmingham University). We developed a sensitive search strategy; search terms were designed to cover key concepts using several different approaches run in parallel and included terms relating to cognitive tests, cognitive screening and dementia. We used standardized database subject headings such as MeSH terms (in MEDLINE) and other standardized headings (controlled vocabulary) in other databases, as appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in primary care settings, which included (not necessarily exclusively) IQCODE to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. For the "primary care" setting, we included those healthcare settings where unselected patients, present for initial, non-specialist assessment of memory or non-memory related symptoms; often with a view to onward referral for more definitive assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. Quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) was determined using the QUADAS-2 tool. Reporting quality was determined using the STARDdem extension to the STARD tool. MAIN RESULTS: From 71 papers describing IQCODE test accuracy, we included 1 paper, representing data from 230 individuals (n=16 [7%] with dementia). The paper described those patients consulting a primary care service who self-identified as Japanese-American. Dementia diagnosis was made using Benson & Cummings criteria and the IQCODE was recorded as part of a longer interview with the informant. IQCODE accuracy was assessed at various test thresholds, with a "trade-off" between sensitivity and specificity across these cutpoints. At an IQCODE threshold of 3.2 sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 76%; for IQCODE 3.7 sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 98%. Applying the QUADAS-2 assessments, the study was at high risk of bias in all categories. In particular degree of blinding was unclear and not all participants were included in the final analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to give definitive guidance on the test accuracy of IQCODE for the diagnosis of dementia in a primary care setting based on the single study identified. We are surprised by the lack of research using the IQCODE in primary care as this is, arguably, the most appropriate setting for targeted case finding of those with undiagnosed dementia in order to maximise opportunities to intervene and provide support for the individual and their carers.

Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the detection of dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. Global prevalence is projected to increase, particularly in resource-limited settings. Recent policy changes in Western countries to increase detection mandates a careful examination of the diagnostic accuracy of neuropsychological tests for dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for the detection of dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO and LILACS databases to August 2012. In addition, we searched specialised sources containing diagnostic studies and reviews, including MEDION (Meta-analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Health Technology Assessment Database), ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) and C-EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine) databases. We also searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group specialized register of diagnostic and intervention studies). We identified further relevant studies from the PubMed 'related articles' feature and by tracking key studies in Science Citation Index and Scopus. We also searched for relevant grey literature from the Web of Science Core Collection, including Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), PhD theses and contacted researchers with potential relevant data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional designs where all participants were recruited from the same sample were sought; case-control studies were excluded due to high chance of bias. We searched for studies from memory clinics, hospital clinics, primary care and community populations. We excluded studies of early onset dementia, dementia from a secondary cause, or studies where participants were selected on the basis of a specific disease type such as Parkinson's disease or specific settings such as nursing homes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted dementia study prevalence and dichotomised test positive/test negative results with thresholds used to diagnose dementia. This allowed calculation of sensitivity and specificity if not already reported in the study. Study authors were contacted where there was insufficient information to complete the 2x2 tables. We performed quality assessment according to the QUADAS-2 criteria. Methodological variation in selected studies precluded quantitative meta-analysis, therefore results from individual studies were presented with a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were selected: three in memory clinics, two in hospital clinics, none in primary care and two in population-derived samples. There were 9422 participants in total, but most of studies recruited only small samples, with only one having more than 350 participants. The prevalence of dementia was 22% to 54% in the clinic-based studies, and 5% to 10% in population samples. In the four studies that used the recommended threshold score of 26 or over indicating normal cognition, the MoCA had high sensitivity of 0.94 or more but low specificity of 0.60 or less. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality and quantity of information is insufficient to make recommendations on the clinical utility of MoCA for detecting dementia in different settings. Further studies that do not recruit participants based on diagnoses already present (case-control design) but apply diagnostic tests and reference standards prospectively are required. Methodological clarity could be improved in subsequent DTA studies of MoCA by reporting findings using recommended guidelines (e.g. STARDdem). Thresholds lower than 26 are likely to be more useful for optimal diagnostic accuracy of MoCA in dementia, but this requires confirmation in further studies.

Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia within a community setting.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease and related forms of dementia are becoming increasingly prevalent with the aging of many populations. The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease relies on tests to evaluate cognition and discriminate between individuals with dementia and those without dementia. The Mini-Cog is a brief, cognitive screening test that is frequently used to evaluate cognition in older adults in various settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in a community setting. Secondary objectives included investigations of the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies and potential sources of heterogeneity. These potential sources of heterogeneity included the baseline prevalence of dementia in study samples, thresholds used to determine positive test results, the type of dementia (Alzheimer's disease dementia or all causes of dementia), and aspects of study design related to study quality. Overall, the goals of this review were to determine if the Mini-Cog is a cognitive screening test that could be recommended to screen for cognitive impairment in community settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Science Citation Index (Web of Science), BIOSIS previews (Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), and the Cochrane Dementia Group's developing register of diagnostic test accuracy studies to March 2013. We used citation tracking (using the database's 'related articles' feature, where available) as an additional search method and contacted authors of eligible studies for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all cross-sectional studies that utilized the Mini-Cog as an index test for the diagnosis of dementia when compared to a reference standard diagnosis of dementia using standardized dementia diagnostic criteria. For the current review we only included studies that were conducted on samples from community settings, and excluded studies that were conducted in primary care or secondary care settings. We considered studies to be conducted in a community setting where participants were sampled from the general population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information from studies meeting the inclusion criteria were extracted including information on the characteristics of participants in the studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria and summarized using risk of bias applicability and summary graphs. We extracted information on the diagnostic test accuracy of studies including the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals of these measures and summarized the findings using forest plots. Study specific sensitivities and specificities were also plotted in receiver operating curve space. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1620 participants. The sensitivities of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.99, 0.76 and 0.99. The specificity of the Mini-Cog varied in the individual studies and was 0.93, 0.89 and 0.83. There was clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies which precluded a pooled meta-analysis of the results. Methodological limitations were present in all the studies introducing potential sources of bias, specifically with respect to the methods for participant selection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the Mini-Cog in community settings. The limited number of studies and the methodological limitations that are present in the current studies make it difficult to provide recommendations for or against the use of the Mini-Cog as a cognitive screening test in community settings. Additional well-designed studies comparing the Mini-Cog to other brief cognitive screening tests are required in order to determine the accuracy and utility of the Mini-Cog in community based settings.