Search

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best‐known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the MMSE at various thresholds for detecting individuals with baseline MCI who would clinically convert to dementia in general, Alzheimer’s disease dementia or other forms of dementia at follow‐up. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow‐up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer’s dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS‐2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all‐cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer’s disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand‐alone single‐administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to 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.

The 10/66 dementia protocol was developed as a language and culture-fair instrument to estimate the prevalence of dementia in non-English speaking communities. The aim of this study was to validate the 10/66 dementia protocol in elders of Indian ethnicity born in the Fiji Islands (Fijian-Indian) living in New Zealand. To our knowledge, this is the first time a dementia diagnostic tool has been evaluated in the Fijian-Indian population in New Zealand. We translated and adapted the 10/66 dementia protocol for use in in Fijian-Indian people. Individuals (age ≥ 65) who self-identified as Fijian-Indian and had either been assessed for dementia at a local memory service (13 cases, eight controls) or had participated in a concurrent dementia prevalence feasibility study (eight controls) participated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Youden’s index were obtained by comparing the 10/66 diagnosis and its sub-components against the clinical diagnosis (reference standard). The 10/66 diagnosis had a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI 70.3–99.5), specificity of 93.8% (95% CI 75.3–99.6), positive predictive value of 92.3% (95% CI 70.3–99.5), and negative predictive value of 93.8% (95% CI 75.3–99.6). The study results show that the Fijian-Indian 10/66 dementia protocol has adequate discriminatory abilities to diagnose dementia in our sample. This instrument would be suitable for future dementia population-based studies in the Fijian-Indian population living in Aotearoa/New Zealand or the Fiji-Islands.

Objective The number of Asian New Zealanders with dementia is growing. The objective of this study was to explore with a group of Asian health care professionals about public attitudes towards dementia in Asian communities in New Zealand, the stigma of dementia, and how best to develop culturally appropriate services for Asian people and families living with dementia. Methods A focus group was conducted with a group of bilingual Asian health care professionals. A topic guide was developed based on the discussion at a prior meeting with the Cross Cultural Interest Group. The data were independently analysed by three researchers using the thematic qualitative methodology. Results Eleven overseas-born Asian health care professionals (Chinese: n = 9, 82%) participated in the focus group. Four main themes emerged from the data: (a) cultural interpretations of dementia; (b) stigma; (c) filial piety; and (d) inequity in the availability of resources. Conclusion Our findings suggest that much work is needed to destigmatise dementia in New Zealand Asian communities, through psychoeducation, public awareness, and the availability of readily accessible services that can meet their cultural and language needs.

Background: Aged residential care (ARC) is a significant cost of dementia care. However, little is known about the predictors of ARC placement in New Zealand (NZ), which is important for service planning and funding. The aim of this study was to investigate the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics that predict future ARC placement among people who received a new diagnosis of dementia at a NZ memory service.Methods: Routinely collected baseline sociodemographic and clinical data in a memory service from 14/06/13 and 14/12/19 were linked with administrative LTC admission data up to 24/1/2020. Survival analysis was carried out using multivariate Cox regression models to determine significant risk factors and their association with ARC placement.Results: A total of 657 NZ European, Māori and Pacific Islander patients were included in the analyses. There were significant differences by ethnicity including age, living situation, comorbidity and ARC placement. Adjusted analyses showed that risk of ARC placement was increased by older age (HR 1.02 per year, 95%CI:1.00–1.05), moderate dementia (HR 1.45, 95%CI:1.05–1.99), severe dementia (HR 2.25, 95%CI:1.33–3.81), and antipsychotics (HR 1.55, 95%CI:1.04–2.32); while risk was reduced in Māori (HR 0.35, 95%CI:0.18–0.68) and Pacific Islanders (HR 0.32, 95%CI:0.20–0.51).Conclusions: Despite having more severe dementia and higher comorbidity, Māori and Pacific Islanders had reduced risks of ARC placement. There is an urgent need to better understand dementia care issues and to ensure culturally safe and responsive dementia services are accessible by Māori and Pacific Islanders living in the community.

BackgroundThe accuracy of General Practitioners’ (GPs’) clinical judgement for dementia is uncertain.AimInvestigate the accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgement for the diagnosis of dementia.Design and SettingDiagnostic test accuracy study, recruiting from 21 practices around Bristol.MethodThe clinical judgement of the treating GP (index test) was based on the information immediately available at their initial consultation with a person aged over 70 years who had cognitive symptoms. The reference standard was an assessment by a specialist clinician, based on a standardised clinical examination and made according to ICD-10 criteria for dementia.Results240 people were recruited, with a median age of 80 years (IQR 75 to 84 years), of whom 126 (53%) were men and 132 (55%) had dementia. The median duration of symptoms was 24 months (IQR 12 to 36 months) and the median ACE-III score was 75 (IQR 65 to 87). GP clinical judgement had sensitivity 56% (95% CI 47% to 65%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 81% to 94%). Positive likelihood ratio was higher in people aged 70-79 years (6.5, 95% CI 2.9 to 15) compared to people aged ≥ 80 years (3.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.6), and in women (10.4, 95% CI 3.4 to 31.7) compared to men (3.2, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.2), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was similar in all groups.ConclusionA GP clinical judgement of dementia is specific, but confirmatory testing is needed for symptomatic people who GPs judge as not having dementia.How this fits inPrevious studies in this area have investigated the accuracy of GP clinical judgement as a screening test for dementia in unselected people attending a primary care clinic; or as a retrospective test based on their knowledge of their patient; or derived the accuracy of judgement from the medical records, which may not reflect the judgement of the clinician. The role of the GP in supporting a more effective route to diagnosis for people with dementia is a research priority for patients, carers and clinicians. This study shows that, in a symptomatic older adult, prospective clinical judgement may be useful for helping to confirm a diagnosis of dementia, whereas GP judgement should not by itself be used to exclude dementia.

The cornerstone of dementia care is social care, and much of this is delivered by the families and carers of people with dementia. The management of dementia should therefore focus on supporting and developing the care provided by family members and carers in the community, because their education and enablement will help to optimize the quality of life for all people living with dementia. This chapter concentrates on the assessment and management of people with dementia in the early and later stages of the disorder. At both stages we consider engagement, autonomy, respect, protection, and ethical issues, as well as describing the clinical and psychosocial aspects of treatment. The emphasis is on the broader principles of management, which apply to people with dementia of any aetiology, their families, carers, and communities, and take into account the different settings in which they may present.

Background Paramedics are increasingly required to make complex decisions as to whether they should convey a patient to hospital or manage their condition at the scene. Dementia can be a significant barrier to the assessment process. However, to our knowledge no research has specifically examined the process of decision-making by paramedics in relation to people with dementia. This qualitative study was designed to investigate the factors influencing the decision-making process during Emergency Medical Services (EMS) calls to older people with dementia who did not require immediate clinical treatment. Methods This qualitative study used a combination of observation, interview and document analysis to investigate the factors influencing the decision-making process during EMS calls to older people with dementia. A researcher worked alongside paramedics in the capacity of observer and recruited eligible patients to participate in case studies. Data were collected from observation notes of decision-making during the incident, patient care records and post incident interviews with participants, and analysed thematically. Findings Four main themes emerged from the data concerning the way that paramedics make conveyance decisions when called to people with dementia: 1) Physical condition; the key factor influencing paramedics’ decision-making was the physical condition of the patient. 2) Cognitive capacity; most of the participants preferred not to remove patients with a diagnosis of dementia from surroundings familiar to them, unless they deemed it absolutely essential. 3) Patient circumstances; this included the patient’s medical history and the support available to them. 4) Professional influences; participants also drew on other perspectives, such as advice from colleagues or information from the patient’s General Practitioner, to inform their decision-making. Conclusion The preference for avoiding unnecessary conveyance for patients with dementia, combined with difficulties in obtaining an accurate patient medical history and assessment, mean that decision-making can be particularly problematic for paramedics. Further research is needed to find reliable ways of assessing patients and accessing information to support conveyance decisions for EMS calls to people with dementia.

Background: Twelve potentially modifiable risk factors (less education, hypertension, obesity, alcohol, traumatic brain injury (TBI), hearing loss, smoking, depression, physical inactivity, social isolation, diabetes, air pollution) account for an estimated 40% of worldwide dementia cases. We aimed to calculate population attributable fractions (PAFs) for dementia for the four largest New Zealand ethnic groups (European, Māori, Asian, and Pacific peoples) to identify whether optimal dementia prevention targets differed by ethnicity. Methods: We calculated risk factor prevalence for 10 risk factors using the New Zealand Health Survey 2018/19 and published reports for hearing loss and TBI prevalences. We calculated the PAF for each risk factor using calculated prevalence and relative risk estimates from previous meta-analyses. To account for risk factor overlap, we calculated communality of risk factors and a weighted PAF. Findings: The weighted PAF for dementia was 47.7% overall in New Zealand, 47.6% for Europeans, 51.4% for Māori, 50.8% for Pacific peoples, and 40.8% for Asians. Highest PAFs for Europeans were hearing loss (8%) and social isolation (5.7%), and for Asians hearing loss (7.3%) and physical inactivity (5.5%). For Māori and Pacific peoples, highest PAFs were for obesity (7.3% and 8.9% respectively) and hearing loss (6.5% and 6.6%). Interpretation: New Zealand has higher dementia prevention potential than worldwide estimates with high prevalences of untreated hearing loss and obesity. The relative contribution of individual risk factors PAFs varies by ethnic group. Public health strategies for dementia prevention need to be tailored to these differences. Funding: Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC:20/021).

BackgroundGPs often report using clinical judgment to diagnose dementia.AimTo investigate the accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgment for the diagnosis of dementia.Design & settingDiagnostic test accuracy study, recruiting from 21 practices around Bristol, UK.MethodThe clinical judgment of the treating GP (index test) was based on the information immediately available at their initial consultation with a person aged ≥70 years who had cognitive symptoms. The reference standard was an assessment by a specialist clinician, based on a standardised clinical examination and made according to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for dementia.ResultsA total of 240 people were recruited, with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range [IQR] 75–84 years), of whom 126 (53%) were men and 132 (55%) had dementia. The median duration of symptoms was 24 months (IQR 12–36 months) and the median Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) score was 75 (IQR 65–87). GP clinical judgment had sensitivity 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 47% to 65%) and specificity 89% (95% CI = 81% to 94%). Positive likelihood ratio was higher in people aged 70–79 years (6.5, 95% CI = 2.9 to 15) compared with people aged ≥80 years (3.6, 95% CI = 1.7 to 7.6), and in women (10.4, 95% CI = 3.4 to 31.7) compared with men (3.2, 95% CI = 1.7 to 6.2), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was similar in all groups.ConclusionA GP clinical judgment of dementia is specific, but confirmatory testing is needed to exclude dementia in symptomatic people whom GPs judge as not having dementia.

Background As the economic impact of dementia on health and social care increases, governments require disease-specific epidemiological data that will help inform spending and policy decisions. The aim of this study is to examine predictors of mortality in dementia in consecutive referrals to a New Zealand (NZ) memory service that includes Māori, Pacific Islander, and NZ European patients. Methods Date of birth, sex, ethnicity, living situation, cognitive function, dementia subtype, dementia severity, physical comorbidity, and medication data were collected from electronic health records. The resulting data set was linked to administrative data on mortality and last hospital contact dates to allow time-dependent survival analyses. Results The risk of death in people with dementia was increased by age (adjusted HR per year 1.08, 95%CI:1.05-1.12) and lower cognitive score at baseline (adjusted HR for severe impairment:2.54, 95% CI:1.25-5.16), and was reduced by cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted HR:0.54, 95% CI:0.34-0.88). Compared to NZ Europeans (HR:1.19, 95% CI:0.63-2.25), antipsychotics increased the risk of death three-fold in Māori (adjusted HR:3.62, 95% CI:0.79-16.7) and Pacific Islanders (adjusted HR:2.54, 95%CI:1.10-5.85). Conclusions Further research is required to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the survival rates in Māori and Pacific Islanders living with dementia in NZ,and their increased risk of death if antipsychotics are used.

Background In the UK, dementia affects 5% of the population aged over 65 years and 25% of those over 85 years. Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) represents one subtype and is thought to account for up to 16% of all degenerative dementias. Although the core of the diagnostic process in dementia rests firmly on clinical and cognitive assessments, a wide range of investigations are available to aid diagnosis. Regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is an established clinical tool that uses an intravenously injected radiolabelled tracer to map blood flow in the brain. In FTD the characteristic pattern seen is hypoperfusion of the frontal and anterior temporal lobes. This pattern of blood flow is different to patterns seen in other subtypes of dementia and so can be used to differentiate FTD. It has been proposed that a diagnosis of FTD, (particularly early stage), should be made not only on the basis of clinical criteria but using a combination of other diagnostic findings, including rCBF SPECT. However, more extensive testing comes at a financial cost, and with a potential risk to patient safety and comfort. Objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of rCBF SPECT for diagnosing FTD in populations with suspected dementia in secondary/tertiary healthcare settings and in the differential diagnosis of FTD from other dementia subtypes. Search methods Our search strategy used two concepts: (a) the index test and (b) the condition of interest. We searched citation databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), BIOSIS (Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and LILACS (Bireme), using structured search strategies appropriate for each database. In addition we searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews including: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and HTA (Health Technology Assessment) database. We requested a search of the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies and used the related articles feature in PubMed to search for additional studies. We tracked key studies in citation databases such as Science Citation Index and Scopus to ascertain any further relevant studies. We identified ‘grey’ literature, mainly in the form of conference abstracts, through the Web of Science Core Collection, including Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Embase. The most recent search for this review was run on the 1 June 2013. Following title and abstract screening of the search results, full-text papers were obtained for each potentially eligible study. These papers were then independently evaluated for inclusion or exclusion. Selection criteria We included both case-control and cohort (delayed verification of diagnosis) studies. Where studies used a case-control design we included all participants who had a clinical diagnosis of FTD or other dementia subtype using standard clinical diagnostic criteria. For cohort studies, we included studies where all participants with suspected dementia were administered rCBF SPECT at baseline. We excluded studies of participants from selected populations (e.g. post-stroke) and studies of participants with a secondary cause of cognitive impairment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted information on study characteristics and data for the assessment of methodological quality and the investigation of heterogeneity. We assessed the methodological quality of each study using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool. We produced a narrative summary describing numbers of studies that were found to have high/low/unclear risk of bias as well as concerns regarding applicability. To produce 2 x 2 tables, we dichotomised the rCBF SPECT results (scan positive or negative for FTD) and cross-tabulated them against the results for the reference standard. These tables were then used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the index test. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the considerable between-study variation in clinical and methodological characteristics. Main results Eleven studies (1117 participants) met our inclusion criteria. These consisted of six case-control studies, two retrospective cohort studies and three prospective cohort studies. Three studies used single-headed camera SPECT while the remaining eight used multiple-headed camera SPECT. Study design and methods varied widely. Overall, participant selection was not well described and the studies were judged as having either high or unclear risk of bias. Often the threshold used to define a positive SPECT result was not predefined and the results were reported with knowledge of the reference standard. Concerns regarding applicability of the studies to the review question were generally low across all three domains (participant selection, index test and reference standard). Sensitivities and specificities for differentiating FTD from non-FTD ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 and from 0.80 to 1.00, respectively, for the three multiple-headed camera studies. Sensitivities were lower for the two single-headed camera studies; one reported a sensitivity and specificity of 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.85) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98), respectively, and the other a sensitivity and specificity of 0.36 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.50) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.95), respectively. Eight of the 11 studies which used SPECT to differentiate FTD from Alzheimer's disease used multiple-headed camera SPECT. Of these studies, five used a case-control design and reported sensitivities of between 0.52 and 1.00, and specificities of between 0.41 and 0.86. The remaining three studies used a cohort design and reported sensitivities of between 0.73 and 1.00, and specificities of between 0.94 and 1.00. The three studies that used single-headed camera SPECT reported sensitivities of between 0.40 and 0.80, and specificities of between 0.61 and 0.97. Authors' conclusions At present, we would not recommend the routine use of rCBF SPECT in clinical practice because there is insufficient evidence from the available literature to support this. Further research into the use of rCBF SPECT for differentiating FTD from other dementias is required. In particular, protocols should be standardised, study populations should be well described, the threshold for 'abnormal' scans predefined and clear details given on how scans are analysed. More prospective cohort studies that verify the presence or absence of FTD during a period of follow up should be undertaken.

ObjectivesAn increasing number of older people are calling ambulances and presenting to accident and emergency departments. The presence of comorbidities and dementia can make managing these patients more challenging and hospital admission more likely, resulting in poorer outcomes for patients. However, we do not know how many of these patients are conveyed to hospital by ambulance. This study aims to determine: how often ambulances are called to older people; how often comorbidities including dementia are recorded; the reason for the call; provisional diagnosis; the amount of time ambulance clinicians spend on scene; the frequency with which these patients are transported to hospital.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of ambulance patient care records (PCRs) from calls to patients aged 65 years and over. Data were collected from two ambulance services in England during 24 or 48 hours periods in January 2017 and July 2017. The records were examined by two researchers using a standard template and the data were extracted from 3037 PCRs using a coding structure.ResultsResults were reported as percentages and means with 95% CIs. Dementia was recorded in 421 (13.9%) of PCRs. Patients with dementia were significantly less likely to be conveyed to hospital following an emergency call than those without dementia. The call cycle times were similar for patients regardless of whether or not they had dementia. Calls to people with dementia were more likely to be due to injury following a fall. In the overall sample, one or more comorbidities were reported on the PCR in over 80% of cases.ConclusionRates of hospital conveyance for older people may be related to comorbidities, frailty and complex needs, rather than dementia. Further research is needed to understand the way in which ambulance clinicians make conveyance decisions at scene.

A growing number of older people are accessing emergency medical services (EMS), and many calls to EMS are made by, or on behalf of, people with dementia. Their needs are frequently complex; however, EMS staff are often given minimal guidance on ensuring patient safety, accurate diagnosis, and timely transfer to the most appropriate care. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the EMS experiences of carers for people with dementia and assess the views of EMS staff on the management of dementia, using focus groups and interviews. Themes were focussed on the circumstances surrounding EMS calls to people with dementia. These can prove frustrating due to a lack of information sharing, limited alternatives to hospital attendance and the amount of time that it can take to meet the complex needs of a person with dementia.

Objectives: We describe a case of acute bilateral posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) in a 71-year-old female, which developed during a course of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression. The risks and benefits of continuing ECT were assessed and the patient completed the full course of 16 ECT treatments without further ophthalmic complications. Conclusions: As the incidence of PVD increases with age, and ECT is used more frequently in elderly people with depression, we recommend paying attention to ophthalmic symptoms as part of the routine clinical monitoring of ECT side effects. If ophthalmic symptoms occur, the risks and benefits of ECT need to be weighed up including consultation with an ophthalmologist.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. Objectives To evaluate the association between the quality of relationship between a person with dementia and their family carer and outcomes for the person with dementia. Design Systematic review. Eligibility criteria Cohort studies of people with clinically diagnosed dementia and their main carers. Exposures of interest were any elements of relationship quality, for example, attachment style, expressed emotion and coping style. Our primary outcome was institutionalisation, and secondary outcomes were hospitalisation, death, quality of life and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia ('challenging behaviour'). Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library and Opengrey were searched from inception to May 2017. Study appraisal and synthesis methods The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. A narrative synthesis of results was performed due to differences between studies. Results Twenty studies were included. None of the studies controlled for all prespecified confounding factors (age, gender, socioeconomic status and severity of dementia). Reporting of results was inadequate with many studies simply reporting whether associations were statistically significant' without providing effect size estimates or CIs. There was a suggestion of an association between relationship factors and global challenging behaviour. All studies evaluating global challenging behaviour provided statistical evidence of an association (most P values below 0.02). There was no consistent evidence for an association for any other outcome assessed. Conclusions There is currently no strong or consistent evidence on the effects of relationship factors on institutionalisation, hospitalisation, death or quality of life for people with dementia. There was a suggestion of an association between relationship factors and challenging behaviour, although the evidence for this was weak. To improve our ability to support those with dementia and their families, further robust studies are needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015020518.

OBJECTIVE Ethnicity may affect presentation to clinical services in people with dementia; however, no studies have examined this in Māori or Pacific peoples in New Zealand (NZ). Our objective was to examine the routinely collected clinical data from a memory assessment service in South Auckland to examine the presentation of dementia in the major NZ ethnic groups. METHODS A total of 360 patients presenting to a memory service with a new diagnosis of dementia were included in this study. Demographic data (age, sex, and ethnicity) and dementia sub-type and severity were analyzed. RESULTS There were 142 NZ European (mean age: 79.2, SD 7.4), 43 Māori (mean age: 70.2, SD 7.6), 126 Pacific (mean age: 74.3, SD 7.6), and 49 other ethnicities (mean age: 78.0, SD 8.5) presenting with a new diagnosis of dementia. After adjustment for gender and dementia subtype, Māori and Pacific patients were 8.5 and 5.3 years younger than NZ European patients (P

Objectives: Scholarly projects (SPs) are a compulsory component of psychiatry training in Australasia. This article outlines the role of a research supervisor in supporting a trainee to complete an SP. Methods: A total of 10 old age and forensic psychiatry SPs were reviewed with regard to aims, methodology, supervisor input, trainee tasks and additional resources. Results: The main supervisor tasks are described and discussed. They include practical advice on study design, ethics applications, critical appraisal, data analysis, academic writing and publication. Conclusions: Supervising SPs can bring significant rewards in awakening a trainee’s interest in research. Key competencies for research supervision are discussed and further recommendations for supervisor support and training are provided.

BackgroundIn 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.ObjectivesTo 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 methodsWe 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 criteriaWe 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 analysisTwo 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 resultsWe 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' conclusionsClinical 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.

Background Primary care-led dementia services are an increasingly common form of service delivery; however, little is known about how these services are understood by their main stakeholders: the patients, family members and health care professionals. A primary care-led dementia service was piloted in the South Gloucestershire area during 2012, in which general practitioners (GPs) led the process of assessment and establishing a diagnosis. Of the 26 surgeries in the area, 11 initially agreed to participate in the pilot, with 12 more joining the project by the end of December 2012. Aim The aim of this study was to provide a qualitative analysis of the experiences of health care professionals, patients and their families, of the new process of assessment, diagnosis and treatment of dementia within a primary care service. Methods Four patients, three care-givers and eight health care professionals were interviewed by peer researchers – all of whom were current care-givers. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s model. Data were also gathered about the number of referrals and what happened to these referrals. Results Themes gathered into four main areas: ‘ the journey’, ‘what next?’, ‘the benefits and limits of primary care’ and ‘are GPs getting it right’? Conclusions The analysis provided a perspective on the experiences of patients, family members and health care professionals involved in the relocation of part of the memory service, from secondary care (memory clinics) to primary care, being piloted in South Gloucestershire. This identified both practical issues to be improved upon as well as possible barriers.

Background Population screening might provide a mechanism to enable early detection of dementia. Yet the potential benefits, harms or acceptability of such a large-scale intervention are not well understood. This research aims to examine the attitudes and preferences of the general public, health care professionals, people with dementia and their carers towards population screening for dementia. Methods A systematic review of the international literature was undertaken. A search of fifteen bibliographic databases was conducted (up to 12 July 2012; no language restriction) using terms related to dementia, screening, specific screening tools, case finding, and attitudes and preferences; genetic screening and biomarkers were excluded. All study designs were included except opinion-based papers. Included papers were doubly quality assessed and thematically analysed using NVivo. Results 29,910 papers were identified of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. We identified seventeen themes relating to the 3 phases of the screening process (pre-, in- and post-screen) – none emerged as more of a facilitator than a barrier to the acceptance of dementia screening. Seven themes emerged in relation to the patient, carer and general population: existing health state; lifestyle and life view; awareness of dementia; role of clinician; communication; benefit; and role of the family. Ten themes emerged in relation to the clinician and healthcare professional: patient’s existing health and comorbidities; awareness of dementia; confidence; duration of patient contact; suitability of screening tool; cost; disclosure; time; treatment and prognosis; and stigma. Conclusions As for all screening programmes, screening for dementia raises complex issues around preference and choice for clinicians and the public, and it is unclear what specific factors promote or reduce screening acceptance the most. Overall, the level of evidence is low, few large scale studies have been undertaken and none were conducted in representative samples, all affecting the generalizability of identified themes across healthcare contexts. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that population screening for dementia may not be acceptable to either the general public or health care professionals, and highlight where focused efforts are needed to gain insights into dementia specific issues. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0064-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Dementia is becoming one of the most important emerging public health concerns in a generation. In societal approaches to the mitigation of major disease ‘burden’, population screening can sometimes provide an effective approach to improving detection of disease and outcomes. However the acceptability of a systematic population screening programme for dementia, to the British public, is not known. Methods A Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) event was organised to give members of the public from the East of England an opportunity to offer their perspectives and to comment on the findings of a systematic literature review looking at attitudes and preferences towards screening for dementia. The event was attended by 36 members of the public and eight national Alzheimer’s Society Research Network volunteers. The morning discussion contained a presentation, which defined population screening for attendees but contained no reference to the findings of the review. In the afternoon, findings of the review were presented and a discussion on the results was facilitated. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. The NVivo qualitative data software was used to facilitate this process. Results A total of 23 key themes emerged in relation to the carer and general population. The most frequent themes which emerged were the low levels of understanding and awareness around the dementia syndrome; the acceptability and validity of any tests; costs to the National Health Service (NHS); an individual’s existing health status existing health status; financial/profit motive for screening; the inability to change prognosis; and the importance and availability of support. Conclusions Factors such as personal beliefs, experiences and attitudes to health impact on decisions to be screened for dementia. A number of additional concerns were raised which were not previously identified in the systematic literature review. These were around the economic incentives for screening (profit motive), the provision of social support, and the economic/social impacts of screening programmes. This may reflect cultural differences in health and social care funding models between Britain and other countries where previous research was conducted. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0100-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Serious adverse outcomes for people with dementia include institutionalisation, hospitalisation, death, development of behavioural and psychiatric symptoms, and reduced quality of life. The quality of the relationship between the person with dementia and their informal/family carer is thought to affect the risk of these outcomes. However, little is known about which aspects of relationship quality are important, or how they affect outcomes for people with dementia.Methods and analysis This will be a systematic review of the literature. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database, ALOIS and OpenGrey will be searched from inception. 2 independent reviewers will screen results for eligibility with standardised criteria. Data will be extracted for relevant studies, and information on the associations between relationship quality and dementia outcomes will be synthesised. Meta-analysis will be performed if possible to calculate pooled effect sizes. Narrative synthesis will be performed if study heterogeneity rules out meta-analysis.Ethics and dissemination Ethical review is not necessary as this review summarises data from previous studies. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication. Results will also be disseminated to a patient and public involvement group and an expert panel for their views on the findings and implications for future work.Trial registration number CRD42015020518.

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia.OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11-item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all-cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all-cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver-operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method.MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full-text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta-analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta-analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14-30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17-26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta-analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient-relevant outcomes.

Objective: to compare liaison psychiatric nursing with usual medical care in the management of older medical inpatients who screen positive for depression. Design: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: medical wards of UK district general hospital in rural East Anglia. Participants: one hundred and thirty-eight medical inpatients aged 65+ screened positive on the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS). One hundred and twenty-one out of 138 screen positives entered the trial (58/121 fulfilled criteria for depressive disorder at baseline). Interventions: (i) A liaison psychiatric nurse assessed participants, formulated a care plan for treatment of their depression, ensured its implementation through liaison with appropriate agencies, and monitored participants' mood and response to treatment for up to 12 weeks. (ii) Usual treatment by hospital and primary care staff. Main outcome measures: ICD-10 depressive disorder, change in GDS-15 score, quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs) and patient satisfaction rating. Results: eighty-six out of 121 participants completed the 16-week trial. Participants in the intervention group were more satisfied with their care, but no significant differences in depressive disorder, depression rating or QALWs gained were found between groups. However, there was a trend towards improvement in the intervention group and effect sizes were higher in the subgroup with depressive disorder. Conclusions: this study is the first RCT to evaluate liaison psychiatric nursing specifically for depression in older medical inpatients; the findings suggest improvement in mental health and quality of life, but a larger trial is required to provide convincing evidence. © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved.

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 diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at various thresholds for dementia and its subtypes. 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.

IntroductionOlder people with multimorbidities frequently access 999 ambulance services. When multimorbidities include dementia, the risk of ambulance use, accident and emergency (A&E) attendance and hospital admission are all increased, even when a condition is treatable in the community. People with dementia tend to do poorly in the acute hospital setting and hospital admission can result in adverse outcomes. This study aims to provide an evidence-based understanding of how older people living with dementia and other multimorbidities are using emergency ambulance services. It will also provide evidence of how paramedics make decisions about taking this group of patients to hospital, and what resources would allow them to make more person-focused decisions to enable optimal patient care. Methods and analysisPhase 1: retrospective data analysis: quantitative analysis of ambulance service data will investigate: how often paramedics are called to older people with dementia; the amount of time paramedics spend on scene and the frequency with which these patients are transported to hospital. Phase 2: observational case studies: detailed case studies will be compiled using qualitative methods, including non-participant observation of paramedic decision-making, to understand why older people with multimorbidities including dementia are conveyed to A&E when they could be treated at home or in the community. Phase 3: needs analysis: nominal groups with paramedics will investigate and prioritise the resources that would allow emergency, urgent and out of hours care to be effectively delivered to these patients at home or in a community setting. Ethics and disseminationApproval for the study has been obtained from the Health Research Authority (HRA) with National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee approval for phase 2 (16/NW/0803). The dissemination strategy will include publishing findings in appropriate journals, at conferences and in newsletters. We will pay particular attention to dissemination to the public, dementia organisations and ambulance services.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on standards for reporting studies of diagnostic test accuracy for dementia disorders. METHODS: An international consensus process on reporting standards in dementia and cognitive impairment (STARDdem) was established, focusing on studies presenting data from which sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be derived. A working group led the initiative through 4 rounds of consensus work, using a modified Delphi process and culminating in a face-to-face consensus meeting in October 2012. The aim of this process was to agree on how best to supplement the generic standards of the STARD statement to enhance their utility and encourage their use in dementia research. RESULTS: More than 200 comments were received during the wider consultation rounds. The areas at most risk of inadequate reporting were identified and a set of dementia-specific recommendations to supplement the STARD guidance were developed, including better reporting of patient selection, the reference standard used, avoidance of circularity, and reporting of test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: STARDdem is an implementation of the STARD statement in which the original checklist is elaborated and supplemented with guidance pertinent to studies of cognitive disorders. Its adoption is expected to increase transparency, enable more effective evaluation of diagnostic tests in Alzheimer disease and dementia, contribute to greater adherence to methodologic standards, and advance the development of Alzheimer biomarkers.

Background Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. Objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the MMSE at various thresholds for detecting individuals with baseline MCI who would clinically convert to dementia in general, Alzheimer’s disease dementia or other forms of dementia at follow-up. Search methods We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data. Selection criteria We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow-up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer’s dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia. Data collection and analysis We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Main results In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer’s disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis. Authors' conclusions Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand-alone single-administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to dementia.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy of [index test] at various thresholds for ADD and other dementias [target condition] in [target population]. OR To determine the accuracy of [index test] at various thresholds for diagnosing ADD and other dementias [target condition] in [target population] after a follow-up period (delayed-verification studies). To investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies. To highlight the quality and quantity of research evidence available on the effectiveness of the index test in the target population. To identify gaps in the evidence and determine where further research is required.

The views of people with HIV and their professional carers about patients' views on involvement in decision-making and information-seeking were studied, using a standardized self-report instrument. Patients and staff reported high levels of desire for patients' involvement in their care, but there were important differences between groups. Staff had higher preference for patients' involvement in decision-making than the patients themselves, while the opposite was the case for information-seeking. There were differences between professional groups and symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, social workers generally reporting higher preference for patients' autonomy, while doctors reported lower levels. Symptomatic patients tended to have lower preference for autonomy than asymptomatic ones. The significance and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of disabling and non-disabling back pain across age in older adults, and identify risk factors for back pain onset in this age group.\ud \ud METHODS: Participants aged ≥ 75 years answered interviewer-administered questions on back pain as part of a prospective cohort study [Cambridge City over-75s Cohort Study (CC75C)]. Descriptive analyses of data from two surveys, 1988-89 and 1992-93, estimated prevalence and new onset of back pain. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Poisson regression, adjusted for age and gender.\ud \ud RESULTS: Prevalence of disabling and non-disabling back pain was 6 and 23%, respectively. While prevalence of non-disabling back pain did not vary significantly across age (χ²trend : 0.90; P = 0.34), the prevalence of disabling back pain increased with age (χ²trend : 4.02; P = 0.04). New-onset disabling and non-disabling back pain at follow-up was 15 and 5%, respectively. Risk factors found to predict back pain onset at follow-up were: poor self-rated health (RR 3.8; 95% CI 1.8, 8.0); depressive symptoms (RR 2.2; 95% CI 1.3, 3.7); use of health or social services (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1, 2.7); and previous back pain (RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.2-3.5). From these, poor self-rated health, previous back pain and depressive symptoms were found to be independent predictors of pain onset. Markers of social networks were not associated with the reporting of back pain onset. \ud \ud CONCLUSION: The risk of disabling back pain rises in older age. Older adults with poor self-rated health, depressive symptoms, increased use of health and social services and a previous episode of back pain are at greater risk of reporting future back pain onset.

Objective: To examine the relationship between depressive symptoms and hospital outcomes in an unselected consecutive sample of older medical inpatients. Design: A prospective cohort study of individuals screened for a trial. Setting: Medical wards of UK district general hospital in rural East Anglia. Participants: Six hundred and seventeen medical inpatients aged 65+ were randomly selected from consecutive admissions. Baseline measures: 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), the Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G). Main outcome measures: Length of hospital stay; discharge to a community hospital (for rehabilitation), institutional care or usual place of residence; dying in hospital. Results: Depressive symptoms are independently associated with an increased likelihood of inpatient death and transfer to a community hospital for rehabilitation, but are not associated with longer length of stay. Conclusions: Research evaluating effectiveness of identification and treatment of depression in older medical inpatients should consider including inpatient death and use of rehabilitation services as potential outcomes. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved.

Background: Older people with depression make greater use of healthcare services, but the detection of the disorder is poor. The National Service Framework for Older People recommended screening for depression in acute healthcare settings to improve health outcomes of older people. Previous studies, mainly outside the UK, report widely differing rates for depression that do not usefully inform UK practice. Thus the aim of this study is to estimate, in a large representative sample of older medical inpatients in a UK hospital setting, the prevalence of depressive symptoms and ICD-10 depressive disorder and to examine the sensitivity and specificity of the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) as a screening instrument. Methods: A two-phase prevalence study of depressive disorder was carried out in acute wards of a district general hospital. Six hundred and eighteen (61%) of 1009 eligible older medical inpatients were screened using the GDS-15. A stratified sample (n = 223) was further assessed using the Geriatric Mental State, from which ICD-10 diagnoses were determined. Results: The weighted prevalence estimate of ICD-10 de pressive disorder was 17.7% (95%CI: 12.9-22.5). Forty-four percent of participants scored above the normally recommended cut-point of ≥ 5 on the GDS-15. However, on the basis of ROC, the optimal cut-point of the GDS-15 for screening for depressive disorder in this hospitalised population is two points higher at ≥ 7 (sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.81). Conclusions: This study confirms that depression is common amongst older UK medical inpatients with 1 in 6 suffering from clinical depression. The cut-point for GDS-15 for this population is ≥ 7. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background Population screening might provide a mechanism to enable early detection of dementia. Yet the potential benefits, harms, or acceptability of such a large-scale intervention are not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the international scientific literature to examine the attitudes and preferences of the general public, health-care professionals, people with dementia, and their carers towards population screening for dementia. Methods We searched 15 bibliographic databases (up to July 12, 2012, no language restriction) using wide-ranging terms related to dementia, screening, case-finding, and attitudes and preferences towards testing in primary or community care settings; genetic screening and biomarkers were excluded. All study designs were included except opinion-based papers. Included papers were doubly quality assessed and thematically analysed with NVivo (version 9). The review adheres to the PRISMA checklist. Findings 29 910 articles were identified of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. We identified 17 themes relating to the three phases of the screening process (pre-screen, in-screen, and post-screen), none of which emerged as more of a facilitator than a barrier to the acceptance of dementia screening. Seven themes emerged in relation to the patient, carer, and general population: existing health state, lifestyle and life view, awareness of dementia, role of clinician, communication, benefit, and role of the family. Ten themes emerged in relation to the clinician and health-care professional: the patient's existing health and comorbidities, awareness of dementia, confidence, duration of patient contact, suitability of screening method, cost, disclosure, time, treatment and prognosis, and stigma. Interpretation As for all screening programmes, screening for dementia raises complex issues around preference and choice for clinicians and the public; the specific factors that promote or reduce screening acceptance the most are unclear. Overall, the level of evidence is low, few large scale studies have been undertaken, but none were conducted in representative samples, all affecting the generalisability of identified themes across health-care contexts. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that population screening for dementia might not be acceptable to either the general public or health-care professionals, and highlight where focused efforts are needed to gain insights into dementia specific issues. Funding This article presents independent research cofunded by the Alzheimer's Society (project grant 129) and The BUPA Foundation, and supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

Background Despite over a decade of efforts to improve timely detection, as many as 50% of people with dementia do not receive a formal diagnosis or receive it too late to be clinically useful. Population screening (routine testing of a defined population even when no symptoms or signs have been reported) might provide part of the solution. However, the costs and benefits of this large-scale intervention are unclear. We undertook a systematic review of population screening to clarify the issue. We report on the evidence pertaining to clinical, psychosocial, and economic outcomes. Methods Eligible studies included those assessing population screening either as a standalone or component of a dementia intervention compared with a routine pattern of care in the general population or non-selected general practice or community care attendees. Non-comparative studies and models were also eligible. Relevant manuscripts published by May, 2012, for clinical and psychosocial outcomes (cognition, behaviours, physical and mental health, psychological and emotional wellbeing, stress, stigma, suffering, independence) and by April, 2013, for economic outcomes (cost, cost-effectiveness, cost benefit from any perspectives) were identified by unlimited searches tailored to outcome categories and databases (including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, DARE). Guided by the AMSTAR instrument, we used state-of-the-art methodology, including duplicate title scanning and extraction; no study was excluded on the basis of quality. Findings After screening 12 054 titles and examining the full text of 143 manuscripts, we found no studies that assessed the effect of screening on patient outcomes, such as cognitive, physical, mental or emotional health, social function, or planning. No studies were identified that assessed the potential harms caused by the screening results, such as risk of depression, anxiety, stigma, or loss of independence. For economic outcomes, we screened 5210 titles and examined the full text of 30 manuscripts. We identified three primary studies (one US study, mean age 74·6 years [SD 6·9] for positive screen and 71·1 years [5·5] for negative screen; two related Spanish studies, mean age 72·5 years [11·3]) reporting on the direct cost per patient diagnosed. Four modelling studies compared population screening scenarios with other models of dementia care—one model building on primary data (USA) and two on hypothetical cohorts (UK). Another model (USA) examined the costs of a screening programme for elderly drivers. Combined, these studies suggest that the substantial resources needed to screen for dementia are determined by the age of the screened population, the properties of the screening instrument (in terms of false positive and false negative), the extent to which GPs are involved in follow-up assessments, and the rates of participation at various stages of the diagnostic process. Interpretation The published work is sparse on the potential effect of population screening on individuals and the health-care system. We found no evidence that, if rolled out, population screening would lead to improved clinical or psychosocial outcomes, no evidence furthering our understanding of the risks it entails, and no suggestion of its added value compared with present practice. Learning from present research and scrutiny of available data is needed to assess the benefits and harms of the process of screening in representative patient groups and to identify those most likely to benefit in a population setting. Rigorous, up-to-date, and context-specific models are also needed to assess a range of possible scenarios in which population screening might have added value. Meanwhile, policy makers should be cautious about the introduction of resource-intensive screening programmes for dementia without any evidence of benefits, risks, or cost-effectiveness. Careful assessment of the benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of population screening for dementia is needed before introduction of this costly large-scale intervention. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the Alzheimer's Society (project grant 129) and supported by the NIHR CLAHRC for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Alzheimer's Society, NHS, NIHR, or the Department of Health.

When this book arrived on my doorstep my heart sank at the size of it and I wondered how I would ever find time to review it properly. However, it is very user-friendly. Starting with a section on general aspects of dementia, followed by chapters on its specific causes, the book is easy to use as a