Diagnostic accuracy of dementia screening tools in the Chinese population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 167 diagnostic studies.
Chinese
cognition
dementia
meta-analysis
older people
screening
systematic review
Journal
Age and ageing
ISSN: 1468-2834
Titre abrégé: Age Ageing
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0375655
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 06 2021
28 06 2021
Historique:
received:
20
07
2020
pubmed:
25
2
2021
medline:
7
8
2021
entrez:
24
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The rate of undetected dementia is high in China. However, the performance of dementia screening tools may differ in the Chinese population due to the lower education level and cultural diversity. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dementia screening tools in the Chinese population. Eleven electronic databases were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of dementia screening tools in older Chinese adults. The overall diagnostic accuracy was estimated using bivariate random-effects models, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was presented. One hundred sixty-seven studies including 81 screening tools were identified. Only 134 studies qualified for the meta-analysis. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was the most commonly studied tool, with a combined sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) of 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.90) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.86-0.91), respectively. The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) (SENS: 0.96, 95%CI 0.89-0.99; SPEC: 0.96, 95%CI 0.89-0.98) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (SENS: 0.93, 95%CI 0.88-0.96; SPEC: 0.90, 95%CI 0.86-0.93) showed the highest performance. The General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG), Hasegawa's Dementia Scale and Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument had performances comparable to that of the MMSE. The cut-off scores ranged widely across studies, especially for the MMSE (range: 15-27) and MoCA (range: 14-26). A number of dementia screening tools were validated in the Chinese population after cultural and linguistical adaptations. The ACE-R and MoCA had the best diagnostic accuracy, whereas the GPCOG, with an administration time < 5 minutes, could be considered as a rapid screening tool.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The rate of undetected dementia is high in China. However, the performance of dementia screening tools may differ in the Chinese population due to the lower education level and cultural diversity. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dementia screening tools in the Chinese population.
METHODS
Eleven electronic databases were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of dementia screening tools in older Chinese adults. The overall diagnostic accuracy was estimated using bivariate random-effects models, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was presented.
RESULTS
One hundred sixty-seven studies including 81 screening tools were identified. Only 134 studies qualified for the meta-analysis. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was the most commonly studied tool, with a combined sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) of 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.90) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.86-0.91), respectively. The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) (SENS: 0.96, 95%CI 0.89-0.99; SPEC: 0.96, 95%CI 0.89-0.98) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (SENS: 0.93, 95%CI 0.88-0.96; SPEC: 0.90, 95%CI 0.86-0.93) showed the highest performance. The General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG), Hasegawa's Dementia Scale and Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument had performances comparable to that of the MMSE. The cut-off scores ranged widely across studies, especially for the MMSE (range: 15-27) and MoCA (range: 14-26).
CONCLUSIONS
A number of dementia screening tools were validated in the Chinese population after cultural and linguistical adaptations. The ACE-R and MoCA had the best diagnostic accuracy, whereas the GPCOG, with an administration time < 5 minutes, could be considered as a rapid screening tool.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33625478
pii: 6149047
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afab005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1093-1101Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.