Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders
Original Research Article
Characteristics of Two Telephone Screens for Cognitive ImpairmentJärvenpää T.a · Rinne J.O.a · Räihä I.b,e · Koskenvuo M.c · Löppönen M.f · Hinkka S.d · Kaprio J.gaDepartment of Neurology and Turku PET Centre, Departments of bGeriatrics, cPublic Health and dBiostatistics, University of Turku, and eTurku City Hospital, Turku, fHealth Centre of Lieto, and gDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, University of Oulu, Finland
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Published online: March 13, 2002
Issue release date: March 2002
Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4
ISSN: 1420-8008 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9824 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DEM
Abstract
We studied 56 subjects, 30 patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and 26 healthy controls, using two telephone screens for cognitive impairment, a self-report interview referred to as the TELE and the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS). The sensitivity and specificity of the TELE to differentiate AD patients from healthy controls was 90.0 and 88.5% and those of the TICS were 86.7 and 88.5%, respectively. When receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed, the area under the curve for the TELE was 96.0% (SE 2.4%) and for the TICS 90.3% (SE 4.2%). Pearson’s correlation between the TELE and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was 0.87 (p < 0.0001) and between the TICS and the MMSE 0.86 (p < 0.0001). The correlation between the TELE and the sum of the boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR-SB) was –0.71 (p < 0.0001) and –0.75 between the TICS and the CDR-SB (p < 0.0001). These results indicate that both screens are sensitive and specific instruments for differentiating AD patients from healthy controls and have a strong correlation with face-to-face measures of cognitive function.
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–198.
-
Brandt J, Spencer M, Folstein M: The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 1988;1:111–117.
- Debanne SM, Patterson MB, Dick R, Riedel TM, Schnell A, Rowland DY: Validation of a telephone cognitive assessment battery. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45:1352–1359.
-
Gatz M, Reynolds C, Nikolic J, Lowe B, Karel M, Pedersen N: An empirical test of telephone screening to identify potential dementia cases. Int Psychogeriatr 1995;3:429–438.
- Kawas C, Karagiozis H, Resau L, Corrada M, Brookmeyer R: Reliability of the Blessed Telephone Information-Memory-Concentration test. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1995;8:238–242.
- Lanska DJ, Schmitt FA, Stewart JM, Howe JN: Telephone-assessed mental state. Dementia 1993;4:117–119.
- Monteiro IM, Boksay I, Auer SR, Torossian C, Sinaiko E, Reisberg B: Reliability of routine clinical instruments for the assessment of Alzheimer’s disease administered by telephone. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1998;11:18–24.
-
Morrison AS, Kawas CH: Telephone screening for dementia using the Blessed IMC test. Neurology 1993;43(suppl):A172.
- Roccaforte WH, Burke WJ, Bayer BL, Wengel SP: Validation of a telephone version of the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992;40:697–702.
-
Welsh KA, Breitner JCS, Magruder-Habib KM: Detection of dementia in the elderly using telephone screening of cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 1993;6:103–110.
-
Kahn RL, Pollack M, Goldfarb AI: Factors related to individual differences in mental status of institutionalized aged; in Hoch P, Zubin J (eds): Psychopathology of Aging. New York, Grune & Stratton, 1961, pp 104–113.
- Zarit SH, Miller NE, Kahn RL: Brain function, intellectual impairment and education in the aged. J Am Geriatr Soc 1978;26:58–67.
- McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–944.
- Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, Coben LA, Martin RL: A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1982;140:566–572.
-
Morris JC: Clinical dementia rating: A reliable and valid diagnostic and staging measure for dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Int Psychogeriatr 1997;9(suppl 1):173–176, discussion 177–178.
- Hachinski VC, Iliff LD, Zhilka E, Du Boulay GH, McAllister VL, Marshall J, Russell RW, Symon L: Cerebral blood flow in dementia. Arch Neurol 1975;32:632–637.
- Isoaho R, Puolijoki H, Huhti E, Kivelä S-L, Tala E: Prevalence of asthma in elderly Finns. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:1109–1118.
-
Isoaho R, Puolijoki H, Huhti E, Laippala P, Kivelä S-L: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cognitive impairment in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr 1996;8:113–125.
External Resources
-
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH: Diagnosis; in Collins N, Eckhart C, Chalew GN (eds): Clinical Epidemiology – The Essentials. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1988, pp 42–75.
- DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45.
Article / Publication Details
Published online: March 13, 2002
Issue release date: March 2002
Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4
ISSN: 1420-8008 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9824 (Online)
For additional information: https://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.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
