Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Review Article

Free Access

Literature Review of the Clock Drawing Test as a Tool for Cognitive Screening

Pinto E. · Peters R.

Author affiliations

Care of the Elderly, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

Corresponding Author

Dr. Elisabete Pinto

Care of the Elderly, Imperial College London, Faculty of Medicine

Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road

London W12 0NN (UK)

Tel. +44 20 8383 4282, Fax +44 20 8383 3378, E-Mail e.pinto@imperial.ac.uk

Related Articles for ""

Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2009;27:201–213

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Abstract

Background/Aims: The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is used in clinical practice for the screening of cognitive disorders. This systematic review aims to present and discuss the CDT scoring methods available in the literature, in order to find differences in administration and utility of the CDT. Methods: A literature search was carried out in Medline (1966 to June 2008), Psychinfo (1967 to June 2008) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2008). Results: All studies showed good interrater and test-retest reliabilities. The correlation with other standard screening tests was statistically significant in most studies, but the results were influenced by age, education and language. In studies that included patients with mild or questionable dementia, the CDT had a low sensitivity and variable specificity. Conclusion: The CDT has the characteristics of a good screening method for moderate and severe dementia. However, the scoring method used and potential confounders need to be taken into consideration.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Review Article

Accepted: October 16, 2008
Published online: February 19, 2009
Issue release date: March 2009

Number of Print Pages: 13
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 6

ISSN: 1420-8008 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9824 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/DEM


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.