Reliability of the assessment of the clinical dementia rating scale from the analysis of medical records in comparison with the reference method.
Alzheimer’s disease
Clinical dementia rating
Neurocognitive disorders
Neuropsychology
Reliability
Journal
Alzheimer's research & therapy
ISSN: 1758-9193
Titre abrégé: Alzheimers Res Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101511643
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Sep 2024
05 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
29
11
2023
accepted:
25
08
2024
medline:
6
9
2024
pubmed:
6
9
2024
entrez:
5
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale allows to detect the presence of dementia and to assess its severity, however its evaluation requires a significant time (45 min). We evaluated the agreement between two methods of collection of the CDR: face-to-face interview or based on the information available in the patient's medical record. The CLIMER study was conducted among patients attending a memory center. The CDR scale was evaluated during face-to-face interviews between neuropsychologists and patients and their caregivers and based on blind analysis of the information of the patients' medical record by neuropsychologists. The agreement of the CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB), the 5-point scale CDR and the different domains of the CDR evaluated between the different methods was measured using intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, Bland and Altman method, and linearly weighted Kappa. The study included 139 patients (means ± SD age 80.1 ± 6, 58.3% women, 71.9% with dementia). The ICC for the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with all the information available in the patient's medical record was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97). The mean difference between the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with the medical record was 0.098 ± 1.036, and 92.4% of the patients lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The ICC for the 5-point scale CDR assessed by face-to-face and with the patient's medical record was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.95) when all the available information of the patient's medical record was used. The linear weighted Kappa coefficients was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68-0.91) for the 5-point scale CDR comparison between the two evaluation methods. The analysis by domain of the CDR showed ICC ranging from 0.65 to 0.91 depending of the domains and the methods of evaluation. This study showed an excellent level of agreement of the evaluation of the CDR- SB and the 5-point scale CDR when using all the information of the patient's medical record compared to the face-to-face interview. https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04763941 Registration Date 02/17/2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale allows to detect the presence of dementia and to assess its severity, however its evaluation requires a significant time (45 min). We evaluated the agreement between two methods of collection of the CDR: face-to-face interview or based on the information available in the patient's medical record.
METHODS
METHODS
The CLIMER study was conducted among patients attending a memory center. The CDR scale was evaluated during face-to-face interviews between neuropsychologists and patients and their caregivers and based on blind analysis of the information of the patients' medical record by neuropsychologists. The agreement of the CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB), the 5-point scale CDR and the different domains of the CDR evaluated between the different methods was measured using intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, Bland and Altman method, and linearly weighted Kappa.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study included 139 patients (means ± SD age 80.1 ± 6, 58.3% women, 71.9% with dementia). The ICC for the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with all the information available in the patient's medical record was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97). The mean difference between the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with the medical record was 0.098 ± 1.036, and 92.4% of the patients lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The ICC for the 5-point scale CDR assessed by face-to-face and with the patient's medical record was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.95) when all the available information of the patient's medical record was used. The linear weighted Kappa coefficients was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68-0.91) for the 5-point scale CDR comparison between the two evaluation methods. The analysis by domain of the CDR showed ICC ranging from 0.65 to 0.91 depending of the domains and the methods of evaluation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed an excellent level of agreement of the evaluation of the CDR- SB and the 5-point scale CDR when using all the information of the patient's medical record compared to the face-to-face interview.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04763941 Registration Date 02/17/2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39238042
doi: 10.1186/s13195-024-01567-9
pii: 10.1186/s13195-024-01567-9
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04763941']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
198Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WLCLA, Martin RL. A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry. 1982;140:566–72.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.140.6.566
pubmed: 7104545
O’Bryant SE, Lacritz LH, Hall J, Waring SC, Chan W, Khodr ZG, et al. Validation of the new interpretive guidelines for the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes score in the national Alzheimer’s coordinating center database. Arch Neurol. 2010;67(6):746–9.
doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.115
pubmed: 20558394
pmcid: 2888493
Nyunt MS, Chong MS, Lim WS, Lee TS, Yap P, Ng TP. Reliability and validity of the clinical dementia rating for Community-Living Elderly subjects without an informant. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2013;3(1):407–16.
doi: 10.1159/000355122
pubmed: 24348502
pmcid: 3843919
Cedarbaum JM, Jaros M, Hernandez C, Coley N, Andrieu S, Grundman M, et al. Rationale for use of the clinical dementia rating Sum of boxes as a primary outcome measure for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimer Dement. 2013;1:S45–55.
Budd Haeberlein S, Aisen PS, Barkhof F, Chalkias S, Chen TF, Cohen S, et al. Two Randomized phase 3 studies of Aducanumab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2022;9(2):197–210.
pubmed: 35542991
van Dyck CH, Swanson CJ, Aisen P, Bateman RJ, Chen CC, Gee M, et al. Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(1):9–21.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212948
pubmed: 36449413
Sims JR, Zimmer JA, Evans CD, Lu M, Ardayfio P, Sparks J, et al. Donanemab in early symptomatic Alzheimer Disease: the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;330(6):512–27.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.13239
pubmed: 37459141
pmcid: 10352931
Fillenbaum GG, Peterson B, Morris J. Estimating the validity of the clinical dementia rating scale: the CERAD experience. Consortium to establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease. Aging. 1996;8(6):379–85.
pubmed: 9061124
Perneczky R, Wagenpfeil S, Komossa K, Grtimmer T, Diehl J, Kurz A. Mapping scores onto stages: Mini-mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14(2):139–44.
doi: 10.1097/01.JGP.0000192478.82189.a8
pubmed: 16473978
Dauphinot V, Moutet C, Rouch I, Verdurand M, Mouchoux C, Delphin-Combe F, et al. A multicenter cohort study to investigate the factors associated with functional autonomy change in patients with cognitive complaint or neurocognitive disorders: the MEMORA study protocol. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):191.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1204-1
pubmed: 31319809
pmcid: 6637582
Jessen F, Amariglio RE, Buckley R, Van der Flier WM, Han Y, Molinuevo JL, et al. The characterisation of subjective cognitive decline. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19:271–78.
doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30368-0
pubmed: 31958406
pmcid: 7062546
Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, Dubois B, Feldman HH, Fox NC, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnosis guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008
pubmed: 21514249
McKhann G, Knopman D, Chertkow H, Hyman B, Jack Cj, Kawas C, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association worgroups on diagnosis guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dement. 2011;7(3):263–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005
O’Bryant SE, Waring SC, Cullum CM, Hall J, Lacritz LH, Massman PJ, et al. Staging dementia using clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of boxes scores: a Texas Alzheimer’s research consortium study. Arch Neurol. 2008;65(8):1091–5.
doi: 10.1001/archneur.65.8.1091
pubmed: 18695059
pmcid: 3409562
Folstein M, Folstein S. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive stade of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
pubmed: 1202204
Lawton M, Brody E. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–86.
doi: 10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179
pubmed: 5349366
de Rotrou J, Wu YH, Hugonot-Diener L, Thomas-Antérion C, Vidal JS, Plichart M, et al. DAD-6: a 6-Item version of the Disability Assessment for Dementia scale which may differenciate Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment from controls. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2012;33(2–3):210–8.
doi: 10.1159/000338232
pubmed: 22584691
Bedart M, Molloy DW, Squire L, Dubois S, Lever JA, O’Donnell M. The Zarit Burden interview: a new short version and screening version. 41. 2001;5:652–7.
Cummings JL. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: assessing psychopathology in dementia patients. Neurology. 1997 May 1997;48:S10-6.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
pubmed: 2868172
Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–9.
doi: 10.1177/001316447303300309
Dubois B, Slachevsky A, Litvan I, Pillon B. The FAB: a Frontal Assessment Battery at bedside. Neurology. 2000;55(11):1621–6.
doi: 10.1212/WNL.55.11.1621
pubmed: 11113214
Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543–9.
doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L
pubmed: 2348207
Balsis S, Benge JF, Lowe DA, Geraci L, Doody R. How do scores on the ADAS-Cog, MMSE, and CDR-SOB Correspond? Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(7):1002–9.
doi: 10.1080/13854046.2015.1119312
pubmed: 26617181
Wilhelmson K, Rubenowitz Lundin E, Andersson C, Sundh V, Waern M. Interviews or medical records, which type of data yields the best information on elderly people’s health status? Aging Clin Exp Res. 2006;18(1):25–33.
doi: 10.1007/BF03324637
pubmed: 16608133
Tractenberg RE, Schafer K, Morris JC. Interobserver disagreements on clinical dementia rating assessment: interpretation and implications for training. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2001;15(3):155–61.
doi: 10.1097/00002093-200107000-00007
pubmed: 11522933
Han O, Wei Tan H, Julious S, Sutton L, Jacques R, Lee EK, et al. A descriptive study of samples sizes used in agreement studies published in the PubMed repository. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22:242.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01723-5
pubmed: 36123642
pmcid: 9487062