TY - JOUR
T1 - The utility of simple questions to evaluate cognitive impairment
AU - Daté, Yugaku
AU - Sugiyama, Daisuke
AU - Tabuchi, Hajime
AU - Saito, Naho
AU - Konishi, Mika
AU - Eguchi, Yoko
AU - Momota, Yuki
AU - Yoshizaki, Takahito
AU - Mashima, Kyoko
AU - Mimura, Masaru
AU - Nakahara, Jin
AU - Ito, Daisuke
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Daté et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2020/5
Y1 - 2020/5
N2 - Objectives As the population of patients with cognitive decline grows, physicians and caregivers need brief screening tools. Comprehensive neurocognitive batteries require special training and time for evaluation. We focused on accessibility and compared the diagnostic power of several easy questions. Design “Attended With” (AW) and “Head-Turning Sign” (HTS) factors and participants’ replies to following questions were recorded: “Do you feel that you have more difficulties in your daily life than you used to?”, [no consciousness (C-) or consciousness+ (C+)], “Could you tell me about your daily pleasures or pastimes?” [no pleasure (P-) or pleasure + (P+)], “What are notable current/recent news/topics?” [no news (N-) or news+ (N+)]. Setting This took place in our Memory Clinic between May 2016 and July 2019. Participants We enrolled 162 consecutive cases (44 cognitive normal (CN), 55 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 48 Alzheimer’s disease (AD)). Measurements The sensitivity and specificity of each battery were calculated, and on account of those numbers, the population attributable risk percent % (PAR%) of (AW and HTS+), (C- and P-), (C- and N-), (P- and N-) as analysis of combination of questions, respectively, were calculated. Results AW had high sensitivity, 87.4, 95.8% (CN vs aMCI + AD, CN + aMCI vs AD) but the sensitivity of HTS was only 46.4, 57.7%, and HTS showed high specificity, 100.0, 71.8%. C- had high sensitivity, 80.6, 87.5%, whereas P- and N- had high specificity, both 83.9% in CN vs aMCI + AD, 88.1% and 75.9% in CN + aMCI vs AD, respectively. In combination analysis, the PAR% of (C- and N-) were as high as (AW and HTS+). Conclusions The combination of (C- and N-) is as powerful as (AW and HTS+) in screening AD. Our findings provide novel insights for screening utility of brief questions “Consciousness of Impairment” and “Recent News.”
AB - Objectives As the population of patients with cognitive decline grows, physicians and caregivers need brief screening tools. Comprehensive neurocognitive batteries require special training and time for evaluation. We focused on accessibility and compared the diagnostic power of several easy questions. Design “Attended With” (AW) and “Head-Turning Sign” (HTS) factors and participants’ replies to following questions were recorded: “Do you feel that you have more difficulties in your daily life than you used to?”, [no consciousness (C-) or consciousness+ (C+)], “Could you tell me about your daily pleasures or pastimes?” [no pleasure (P-) or pleasure + (P+)], “What are notable current/recent news/topics?” [no news (N-) or news+ (N+)]. Setting This took place in our Memory Clinic between May 2016 and July 2019. Participants We enrolled 162 consecutive cases (44 cognitive normal (CN), 55 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 48 Alzheimer’s disease (AD)). Measurements The sensitivity and specificity of each battery were calculated, and on account of those numbers, the population attributable risk percent % (PAR%) of (AW and HTS+), (C- and P-), (C- and N-), (P- and N-) as analysis of combination of questions, respectively, were calculated. Results AW had high sensitivity, 87.4, 95.8% (CN vs aMCI + AD, CN + aMCI vs AD) but the sensitivity of HTS was only 46.4, 57.7%, and HTS showed high specificity, 100.0, 71.8%. C- had high sensitivity, 80.6, 87.5%, whereas P- and N- had high specificity, both 83.9% in CN vs aMCI + AD, 88.1% and 75.9% in CN + aMCI vs AD, respectively. In combination analysis, the PAR% of (C- and N-) were as high as (AW and HTS+). Conclusions The combination of (C- and N-) is as powerful as (AW and HTS+) in screening AD. Our findings provide novel insights for screening utility of brief questions “Consciousness of Impairment” and “Recent News.”
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085112137&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85085112137&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0233225
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0233225
M3 - Article
C2 - 32407392
AN - SCOPUS:85085112137
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 15
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 5
M1 - e0233225
ER -