Utilidad diagnóstica y validez predictiva del uso conjunto de Fototest y Mini-Cog en deterioro cognitivo / Diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of associated use of Fototest and Mini-Cog in cognitive impairment

Introducción: El Fototest y el Mini-Cog incluyen todos los dominios que debieran formar parte de una evaluación cognitiva. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la utilidad diagnóstica del uso conjunto de ambos instrumentos para el diagnóstico de deterioro cognitivo (DC). Métodos: Estudio fase iii de evaluación de pruebas diagnósticas con 2 muestras independientes, estudio (448 sujetos), dividida aleatoriamente en 2 dataset (Base 80%, Test 20%), y Externa (61 sujetos). Prueba index: Fototest y Mini-Cog aplicados consecutivamente; prueba de referencia: evaluación cognitiva formal. Se evalúa la UD del uso combinado y escalonado de los modelos simple (Comb-Simple), regresión logística (Comb-RL) y árbol aleatorio (Comb-AA) para identificar DC (GDS ≥ 3). Se realiza un análisis exploratorio en Base seleccionando los criterios que maximizan la exactitud; la evaluación se realiza en las muestras Test y externa mediante un análisis preespecificado con los criterios seleccionados. Resultados: La UD de los modelos combinados en Base (Comb-Simple 88,3 [(88,5-91,4] [exactitud, LI95%-LS95%], Comb-RL 91.6 [88,2-94,3] y Comb-AA 95,2 [92,5-97,2])) es significativamente superior a la de Mini-Cog y Fototest (81,6 [77,1-85,4] y 84,9 [80,8-88,5], respectivamente); estos resultados son replicados en Test (Comb-Simple 88,9 [exactitud], Comb-RL 95,6 y Comb-AA 92,2) y externa (Comb-Simple 91,8, Comb-RL 90,2 y Comb-AA 88,5). La aplicación escalonada mantiene la misma UD pero requiere menos tiempo (197,3 ± 56,7 vs. 233,9 ± 45,2, p < 0,0001). Conclusiones: El uso conjunto del Fototest y el Mini-Cog requiere menos de 4 min y mejora la UD de ambos instrumentos. El uso escalonado es más eficiente porque manteniendo la misma UD requiere menos tiempo de aplicación.(AU)

Introduction: The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment. Methods: We performed a phase iii diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs. consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets. Results: The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs. 233.9 s [45.2]; P<.0001). Conclusions: Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less...(AU)

Diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of combined use of Fototest and Mini-Cog in cognitive impairment.

INTRODUCTION: The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment. METHODS: We performed a phase III diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs 233.9 s [45.2]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4 minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.

Normative data for the Fototest from neurological patients with no cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: To contribute normative data for the Fototest from neurological patients with no cognitive impairment, including disaggregated data on each domain of the test (naming, free recall, total recall, and naming fluency). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in which neurological patients with no cognitive impairment were tested with the Fototest; we recorded total and domain scores. We performed a descriptive study of the total and domain scores, with data disaggregated by sex, age (over/under 65 years), and level of education (primary education completed/not completed; further study completed). RESULTS: We included a sample of 1055 patients, who were mainly women (57.1%), aged over 65 (60.6%), and had a low level of education (38.6% had not completed primary education). Sex, age, and level of education influence total Fototest score (34.6 ±â€¯5.3; P10: 28; P5: 27) and free recall (8.5 ±â€¯2.2; 6; 4), total recall (10.0 ±â€¯1.5; 8; 7), and naming fluency scores (18.7 ±â€¯4.9; 13; 12). For total score, the multivariate analysis revealed values of 1.5 ±â€¯0.3 (ß ±â€¯SD) for sex (female), -2.4 ±â€¯0.3 for age (>65), and -1.6 ±â€¯0.4 and 3.3 ±â€¯0.4 for incomplete primary education and completed post-primary education, respectively (completed primary study was used as a reference). CONCLUSIONS: We provide normative data for total and domain Fototest results for each of the groups defined according to sex, age, and level of education. We also provide a percentile distribution of scores. We hope that these normative data will translate into increases in efficiency in Fototest administration in the clinical setting.

Evaluación de la utilidad diagnóstica y validez discriminativa del Test del Reloj y del Mini-Cog en la detección del deterioro cognitivo / Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity of the Clock Drawing and Mini-Cog tests in detecting cognitive impairment

Introducción y objetivos: El Mini-Cog es un test cognitivo muy breve de uso extendido que incluye una tarea de memoria y una evaluación simplificada del Test del Reloj (TdR). No existe una evaluación formal del Mini-Cog en español; nuestro objetivo es analizar la utilidad diagnóstica (UD) del Mini-Cog y del TdR para deterioro cognitivo (DC). Métodos: Estudio transversal en el que se han incluido de forma sistemática todos los sujetos atendidos durante un semestre en una consulta de Neurología. La UD se ha evaluado para DC (incluye sujetos con criterios NIA-AA de Mild Cognitive Impairment o demencia) por medio del área bajo la curva ROC (aROC). Se han calculado los parámetros de sensibilidad (S), especificidad (E) y cocientes de probabilidad positivo y negativo (CP+, CP−) para los distintos puntos de corte. Resultados: Se han incluido 581 sujetos (315 DC), 55,1% mujeres y 27,7% con bajo nivel educativo (< estudios primarios). La UD del Mini-Cog es superior a la del TdR (0,88 ± 0,01 (aROC ± EE) vs 0,84 ± 0,01, p < 0,01); para ambos instrumentos la UD disminuye notablemente en sujetos con bajo nivel educativo (0,74 ± 0,05 y 0,75 ± 0,05, respectivamente). El punto de corte 2/3 del Mini-Cog tiene una S de 0,90 (0,87-0,93) y una E de 0,71 (0,65-0,76) y el 5/6 del TdR una S de 0,77 (0,72-0,81) y una E de 0,80 (0,75-0,85). Conclusiones: En consulta de Neurología, el Mini-Cog tiene una UD para DC aceptable, superior a la del TdR; ninguno de ellos es un instrumento adecuado para ser utilizado en sujetos con bajo nivel educativo. (AU)

Introduction and objectives: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. Results: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC ± sensitivity: 0.88 ± 0.01 vs 0.84 ± 0.01; P < .01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74 ± 0.05 vs 0.75 ± 0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85). Conclusion: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education. (AU)

Valores normativos del Fototest en pacientes neurológicos sin deterioro cognitivo / Normative data for the Fototest from neurological patients with no cognitive impairment

Objetivos: Proporcionar valores normativos del Fototest relativos a pacientes neurológicos sin deterioro cognitivo, que incluyan datos desagregados para cada uno de los dominios que conforman este instrumento (denominación, recuerdo libre, recuerdo total y fluidez de nombres). Material y métodos: Estudio transversal en pacientes neurológicos sin deterioro cognitivo a los que se aplicó el Fototest, registrándose las puntuaciones desagregadas y total. Estudio descriptivo de los resultados totales y desagregados del Fototest estratificados por sexo, edad (< 65/> 65 años) y estudios (< primaria/primaria/> primaria). Resultados: Muestra de 1.055 sujetos con predominio de mujeres (57,1%), mayores de 65 años (60,6%) y con bajo nivel educativo (36,8% sin estudios primarios). La puntuación total del Fototest (34,6 ± 5,3; 28; 27 [media ± DE; P10; P5]), así como las desagregadas para denominación (5,9 ± 0,3; 6; 5), recuerdo libre (8,5 ± 2,2; 6; 4), recuerdo total (10,0 ± 1,5; 8; 7) y fluidez de nombres (18,7 ± 4,9; 13; 12), están influidas por el sexo, la edad y el nivel educativo. Para la puntuación total, los resultados del estudio multivariante son: sexo (mujer) 1,5 ± 0,3 (ß ± EE), edad (> 65 años) −2,4 ± 0,3, estudios < primaria −1,6 ± 0,4 y estudios > primaria 3,3 ± 0,4 (primaria = referencia estudios). Conclusión: Se proporcionan valores normativos (media ± DE, P10; P5) del Fototest para cada uno de los estratos definidos por las variables sexo, edad y estudios tanto para las puntuaciones totales como desagregadas del Fototest, así como una distribución percentual para cada uno de los valores posibles de estas puntuaciones. Estos valores normativos es de esperar que se traduzcan en una mayor eficiencia del Fototest en el ámbito clínico. (AU)

Objectives: To contribute normative data for the Fototest from neurological patients with no cognitive impairment, including disaggregated data on each domain of the test (naming, free recall, total recall, and naming fluency). Material and methods: We performed a cross-sectional study in which neurological patients with no cognitive impairment were tested with the Fototest; we recorded total and domain scores. We performed a descriptive study of the total and domain scores, with data disaggregated by sex, age (over/under 65 years), and level of education (primary education completed/not completed; further study completed). Results: We included a sample of 1,055 patients, who were mainly women (57.1%), aged over 65 (60.6%), and had a low level of education (38.6% had not completed primary education). Sex, age, and level of education influence total Fototest score (34.6 ± 5.3; P10: 28; P5: 27) and naming (5,9±0,3; 6; 5), free recall (8.5 ± 2.2; 6; 4), total recall (10.0 ± 1.5; 8; 7), and naming fluency scores (18.7 ± 4.9; 13; 12). For total score, the multivariate analysis revealed values of 1.5 ± 0.3 (ß ± SE) for sex (female), −2.4 ± 0.3 for age (> 65), and −1.6 ± 0.4 and 3.3 ± 0.4 for incomplete primary education and completed post-primary education, respectively (completed primary study was used as a reference). Conclusion: We provide normative data for total and domain Fototest results for each of the groups defined according to sex, age, and level of education. We also provide a percentile distribution of scores. We hope that these normative data will translate into increases in efficiency in Fototest administration in the clinical setting. (AU)

Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity of the Clock Drawing and Mini-Cog tests in detecting cognitive impairment.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. RESULTS: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC ±â€¯sensitivity: 0.88 ±â€¯0.01 vs 0.84 ±â€¯0.01; P < .01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74 ±â€¯0.05 vs 0.75 ±â€¯0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85). CONCLUSION: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education.

Diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of associated use of Fototest and Mini-Cog in cognitive impairment. / Utilidad diagnóstica y validez predictiva del uso conjunto de Fototest y Mini-Cog en deterioro cognitivo.

INTRODUCTION: The Fototest and Mini-Cog include all the domains that are necessary in a cognitive assessment. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the combined use of both instruments for detecting cognitive impairment. METHODS: We performed a phase iii diagnostic accuracy study with 2 independent samples: STUDY, which included 448 participants randomly allocated to 2 datasets (BASE [80%] and TEST [20%]); and EXTERNAL, which included 61 participants. The index test was consecutive administration of the Fototest and Mini-Cog, and the reference test was formal cognitive assessment. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of two-step vs. consecutive application of the tests and simple (Comb-Simple), logistic regression (Comb-LR), and random decision tree (Comb-RDT) models of their combined use for detecting cognitive impairment (Global Deterioration Scale score ≥ 3). We performed an exploratory analysis of the BASE dataset, selecting criteria that maximise accuracy; a pre-specified analysis was used to evaluate the selected criteria in the TEST and EXTERNAL datasets. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy (95% confidence interval) of the combined models in the BASE dataset (Comb-Simple: 88.3 [88.5-91.4]; Comb-LR: 91.6 [88.2-94.3]; Comb-RDT 95.2 [92.5-97.2]) was significantly higher than the individual values observed for the Mini-Cog and Fototest (81.6 [77.1-85.4] and 84.9 [80.8-88.5], respectively). These results were replicated in the TEST (Comb-Simple: 88.9; Comb-LR: 95.6; Comb-RDT: 92.2) and EXTERNAL datasets (Comb-Simple: 91.8; Comb-LR: 90.2; Comb-RDT: 88.5). Two-step application had the same diagnostic accuracy than consecutive application but required less time (mean [SD] of 197.3 s [56.7] vs. 233.9 s [45.2]; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined application of the Fototest and Mini-Cog takes less than 4minutes and improves the diagnostic accuracy of both instruments. Two-step application is more efficient as it requires less time while maintaining the same diagnostic accuracy.

Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity of the Clock Drawing and Mini-Cog tests in detecting cognitive impairment. / Evaluación de la utilidad diagnóstica y validez discriminativa del Test del Reloj y del Mini-Cog en la detección del deterioro cognitivo.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Mini-Cog is a very brief, widely used cognitive test that includes a memory task and a simplified assessment of the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). There is not a formal evaluation of the Mini-Cog test in Spanish. This study aims to analyse the diagnostic usefulness of the Mini-Cog and CDT for detecting cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, systematically including all patients who consulted at our neurology clinic over a 6-month period. We assessed diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI (defined according to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia) according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for each cut-off point. RESULTS: The study included 581 individuals (315 with CI); 55.1% were women and 27.7% had not completed primary studies. The Mini-Cog showed greater diagnostic usefulness than the CDT (AUC±sensitivity: 0.88±0.01 vs 0.84±0.01; P<.01). Both instruments were less useful for screening in individuals with a low education level (0.74±0.05 vs 0.75±0.05, respectively). A cut-off point of 2/3 in the Mini-Cog achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 (95%CI, 0.87-0.93) and a specificity of 0.71 (95%CI, 0.65-0.76); a cut-off point of 5/6 in the CDT achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95%CI, 0.72-0.81) and a specificity of 0.80 (95%CI, 0.75-0.85). CONCLUSION: In our neurology clinic, the Mini-Cog showed acceptable diagnostic usefulness for detecting CI, greater than that of the CDT; neither test is an appropriate instrument for individuals with a low level of education.

Normative data for the Fototest from neurological patients with no cognitive impairment. / Valores normativos del Fototest en pacientes neurológicos sin deterioro cognitivo.

OBJECTIVES: To contribute normative data for the Fototest from neurological patients with no cognitive impairment, including disaggregated data on each domain of the test (naming, free recall, total recall, and naming fluency). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in which neurological patients with no cognitive impairment were tested with the Fototest; we recorded total and domain scores. We performed a descriptive study of the total and domain scores, with data disaggregated by sex, age (over/under 65 years), and level of education (primary education completed/not completed; further study completed). RESULTS: We included a sample of 1,055 patients, who were mainly women (57.1%), aged over 65 (60.6%), and had a low level of education (38.6% had not completed primary education). Sex, age, and level of education influence total Fototest score (34.6 ± 5.3; P10: 28; P5: 27) and naming (5,9±0,3; 6; 5), free recall (8.5 ± 2.2; 6; 4), total recall (10.0 ± 1.5; 8; 7), and naming fluency scores (18.7 ± 4.9; 13; 12). For total score, the multivariate analysis revealed values of 1.5 ± 0.3 (ß ± SE) for sex (female), -2.4 ± 0.3 for age (> 65), and -1.6 ± 0.4 and 3.3 ± 0.4 for incomplete primary education and completed post-primary education, respectively (completed primary study was used as a reference). CONCLUSION: We provide normative data for total and domain Fototest results for each of the groups defined according to sex, age, and level of education. We also provide a percentile distribution of scores. We hope that these normative data will translate into increases in efficiency in Fototest administration in the clinical setting.

Estudio ROSA: validación de la versión española de la Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer’s Disease / Validation of the Spanish-language version of the Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease

Introducción y objetivos: La escala Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease (ROSA) es una herramienta útil para la evaluación y seguimiento de pacientes con demencia. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la validez y fiabilidad de una versión española de la escala ROSA. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio multicéntrico nacional en el que 39 investigadores han incluido 237 sujetos con enfermedad de Alzheimer (78 en estadio leve, 79 moderado y 80 grave) a los que se les ha aplicado Mini-Mental, Fototest, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), escala de Blessed y una versión adaptada al español de la escala ROSA. En una submuestra de 40 sujetos se realizó un retest en los 14 días siguientes a la evaluación inicial. La validez de constructo se ha evaluado mediante el coeficiente correlación de Spearman (r), la consistencia interna con el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach (alfa) y la fiabilidad test-retest con el coeficiente correlación intraclase (CCI). Resultados: La escala ROSA se aplica en 13,8 ± 7,4 min y sus resultados están asociados de forma significativa al estadio clínico (leve 116,7 ± 23,1, moderado 92,9 ± 19,8 y grave 64,3 ± 22,6), Mini-Mental (r = 0,68), Fototest (r = 0,63), NPI (r = 0,53) y escala de Blessed (r = -0,80). La escala ROSA muestra una alta consistencia interna (alfa = 0,90) y una excelente fiabilidad test-retest (CCI = 0,97). Conclusión: La versión española de la escala ROSA es un instrumento breve, válido y fiable para la evaluación global de pacientes con demencia (AU)

Introduction and objectives: The Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease (ROSA) is a useful tool for evaluating and monitoring dementia patients. This study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of ROSA. Patients and methods: Spanish multicentre study involving 39 researchers and including 237 patients with Alzheimer disease (78 mild, 79 moderate, and 80 severe). The patients were tested with the following: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Fototest, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Blessed dementia scale, and a Spanish-language version of ROSA. A subsample of 40 subjects was retested in the 14 days following the initial evaluation. The construct validity was evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient (r), internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha (alpha), and test-retest reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: ROSA requires 13.8±7.4 minutes to administer and its results show a significant association with the clinical stage of AD (mild, 116.7±23.1; moderate, 92.9±19.8; and severe, 64.3±22.6), and with results on the MMSE (r=0.68), Fototest (r=0.63), NPI (r=0.53), and Blessed dementia scale (r=-0.80). ROSA shows high internal consistency (alpha=0.90) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC0.97). Conclusion: The Spanish version of ROSA is a brief, valid, and reliable tool permitting overall evaluation of patients with dementia (AU)

Validation of the Spanish-language version of the Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease. / Estudio ROSA: validación de la versión española de la Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Relevant Outcome Scale for Alzheimer's Disease (ROSA) is a useful tool for evaluating and monitoring dementia patients. This study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Spanish version of ROSA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Spanish multicentre study involving 39 researchers and including 237 patients with Alzheimer disease (78 mild, 79 moderate, and 80 severe). The patients were tested with the following: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Fototest, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Blessed dementia scale, and a Spanish-language version of ROSA. A subsample of 40 subjects was retested in the 14 days following the initial evaluation. The construct validity was evaluated with the Spearman correlation coefficient (r), internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha (alpha), and test-retest reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: ROSA requires 13.8±7.4minutes to administer and its results show a significant association with the clinical stage of AD (mild, 116.7±23.1; moderate, 92.9±19.8; and severe, 64.3±22.6), and with results on the MMSE (r=0.68), Fototest (r=0.63), NPI (r=0.53), and Blessed dementia scale (r=-0.80). ROSA shows high internal consistency (alpha=0.90) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC0.97). CONCLUSION: The Spanish version of ROSA is a brief, valid, and reliable tool permitting overall evaluation of patients with dementia.

Evaluación de la utilidad diagnóstica de la versión española del cuestionario al informador «AD8» / Assessing the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of the spanish version of the informant-based AD8 questionnaire

Introducción: El AD8 es un cuestionario al informador breve que puede ser autoaplicado y facilita la identificación de deterioro cognitivo (DC); nuestro objetivo es evaluar la utilidad diagnóstica (UD) de una versión espa˜nola. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal en una muestra clínica de díadas paciente/ informador, 330 sujetos con sospecha de DC o demencia (DEM) y 71 controles. Se ha evaluado la consistencia interna ( de Cronbach) y la validez (correlaciones parciales con estadio GDS, Fototest e índice funcional [IF]). La UD se ha evaluado para no DC vs DC (GDS 3-4) por medio del área bajo la curva ROC (aROC) y se ha considerado mejor punto de corte aquel que hacía máximo el índice de Youden. Resultados: En la muestra, 105 no tenían DC, 99 tenían DC sin DEM y 203 DEM. La consistencia interna es alta ( 0,90, IC del 95%, 0,89-0,92), al igual que las correlaciones con GDS (r = 0,72, p < 0,001), Fototest (r = —0,61, p < 0,001) e IF (r = 0,59, p < 0,001). El aROC del AD8 es 0,90 (IC del 95%, 0,86-0,93), sin diferencia significativa con la del Fototest (aROC 0,93, IC del 95%, 0,89-0,96); el mejor punto de corte es 3/4 con sensibilidad de 0,93 (IC del 95%, 0,88-0,96), especificidad de 0,81 (IC del 95%, 0,72-0,88) y el 88,8% de las clasificaciones correctas. El uso conjunto de AD8 y Fototest mejora de forma significativa la UD de ambos (aROC 0,96, IC del 95%, 0,93-0,98, p < 0,05). Conclusiones: La versión espa˜nola del AD8 conserva las cualidades psicométricas y la UD de la versión original; su uso combinado con el Fototest mejora de forma significativa la UD de ambos (AU)

Introduction: The AD8 is a brief informant-based questionnaire that may also be selfadministered, and which aids in identifying cognitive impairment (CI). Our goal is to assess the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of a Spanish version of that questionnaire. Material and methods: Cross-sectional study of a clinical sample of patient/informant dyads including 330 subjects with suspected CI or dementia (DEM) and 71 controls. We evaluated internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and validity (partial correlations with GDS stage, Fototest results and functional index measure [FIM]). We assessed DA for CI vs no CI (GDS stage 3-4) using the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and the cut-off with the highest Youden index was determined to be optimal. Results: In the sample, 105 subjects had no CI, 99 had CI without DEM and 203 had DEM. Internal consistency was high ( 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-0.92), as were correlations with the GDS score (r=0.72, P<.001), Fototest results (r=−0.61, P<.001) and FIM (r=0.59, P<.001). The AUC for AD8 was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.93), which was not significantly different from that of the Fototest (AUC 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-0.96). The optimal cut-off point was 3/4 with a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-0.96) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.88); 88.8% of the classifications were correct. Combined use of AD8 and the Fototest significantly improved the DA of both (AUC 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.98, P<.05). Conclusions: The Spanish version of the AD8 questionnaire preserves the psychometric qualities and DA of the original. Using this test in combination with the Fototest significantly increases the DA of both tests (AU)

Assessing the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of the Spanish version of the informant-based AD8 questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The AD8 is a brief informant-based questionnaire that may also be self-administered, and which aids in identifying cognitive impairment (CI). Our goal is to assess the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of a Spanish version of that questionnaire. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a clinical sample of patient/informant dyads including 330 subjects with suspected CI or dementia (DEM) and 71 controls. We evaluated internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and validity (partial correlations with GDS stage, Fototest results and functional index measure [FIM]). We assessed DA for CI vs no CI (GDS stage 3-4) using the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and the cut-off with the highest Youden index was determined to be optimal. RESULTS: In the sample, 105 subjects had no CI, 99 had CI without DEM and 203 had DEM. Internal consistency was high (α 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-0.92), as were correlations with the GDS score (r=0.72, P<.001), Fototest results (r=-0.61, P<.001) and FIM (r=0.59, P<.001). The AUC for AD8 was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.93), which was not significantly different from that of the Fototest (AUC 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-0.96). The optimal cut-off point was 3/4 with a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-0.96) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.88); 88.8% of the classifications were correct. Combined use of AD8 and the Fototest significantly improved the DA of both (AUC 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.98, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the AD8 questionnaire preserves the psychometric qualities and DA of the original. Using this test in combination with the Fototest significantly increases the DA of both tests.