Cargando…

Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the risk factors for or causation of dementia must consider subjects prior to disease onset. To overcome the limitations of prospective studies and self-reported recall of information, the use of existing data is key. This review provides a narrative account of deme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sibbett, Ruth A., Russ, Tom C., Deary, Ian J., Starr, John M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28673273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1401-4
_version_ 1783247920047325184
author Sibbett, Ruth A.
Russ, Tom C.
Deary, Ian J.
Starr, John M.
author_facet Sibbett, Ruth A.
Russ, Tom C.
Deary, Ian J.
Starr, John M.
author_sort Sibbett, Ruth A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the risk factors for or causation of dementia must consider subjects prior to disease onset. To overcome the limitations of prospective studies and self-reported recall of information, the use of existing data is key. This review provides a narrative account of dementia ascertainment methods using sources of existing data. METHODS: The literature search was performed using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Web of Science. Included articles reported a UK-based study of dementia in which cases were ascertained using existing data. Existing data included that which was routinely collected and that which was collected for previous research. After removing duplicates, abstracts were screened and the remaining articles were included for full-text review. A quality tool was used to evaluate the description of the ascertainment methodology. RESULTS: Of the 3545 abstracts screened, 360 articles were selected for full-text review. 47 articles were included for final consideration. Data sources for ascertainment included: death records, national datasets, research databases and hospital records among others. 36 articles used existing data alone for ascertainment, of which 27 used only a single data source. The most frequently used source was a research database. Quality scores ranged from 7/16 to 16/16. Quality scores were better for articles with dementia ascertainment as an outcome. Some papers performed validation studies of dementia ascertainment and most indicated that observed rates of dementia were lower than expected. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a lack of consistency in dementia ascertainment methodology using existing data. With no data source identified as a “gold-standard”, we suggest the use of multiple sources. Where possible, studies should access records with evidence to confirm the diagnosis. Studies should also calculate the dementia ascertainment rate for the population being studied to enable a comparison with an expected rate. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1401-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5496178
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54961782017-07-05 Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology Sibbett, Ruth A. Russ, Tom C. Deary, Ian J. Starr, John M. BMC Psychiatry Research Article BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the risk factors for or causation of dementia must consider subjects prior to disease onset. To overcome the limitations of prospective studies and self-reported recall of information, the use of existing data is key. This review provides a narrative account of dementia ascertainment methods using sources of existing data. METHODS: The literature search was performed using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Web of Science. Included articles reported a UK-based study of dementia in which cases were ascertained using existing data. Existing data included that which was routinely collected and that which was collected for previous research. After removing duplicates, abstracts were screened and the remaining articles were included for full-text review. A quality tool was used to evaluate the description of the ascertainment methodology. RESULTS: Of the 3545 abstracts screened, 360 articles were selected for full-text review. 47 articles were included for final consideration. Data sources for ascertainment included: death records, national datasets, research databases and hospital records among others. 36 articles used existing data alone for ascertainment, of which 27 used only a single data source. The most frequently used source was a research database. Quality scores ranged from 7/16 to 16/16. Quality scores were better for articles with dementia ascertainment as an outcome. Some papers performed validation studies of dementia ascertainment and most indicated that observed rates of dementia were lower than expected. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a lack of consistency in dementia ascertainment methodology using existing data. With no data source identified as a “gold-standard”, we suggest the use of multiple sources. Where possible, studies should access records with evidence to confirm the diagnosis. Studies should also calculate the dementia ascertainment rate for the population being studied to enable a comparison with an expected rate. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1401-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5496178/ /pubmed/28673273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1401-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sibbett, Ruth A.
Russ, Tom C.
Deary, Ian J.
Starr, John M.
Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
title Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
title_full Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
title_fullStr Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
title_full_unstemmed Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
title_short Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
title_sort dementia ascertainment using existing data in uk longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28673273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1401-4
work_keys_str_mv AT sibbettrutha dementiaascertainmentusingexistingdatainuklongitudinalandcohortstudiesasystematicreviewofmethodology
AT russtomc dementiaascertainmentusingexistingdatainuklongitudinalandcohortstudiesasystematicreviewofmethodology
AT dearyianj dementiaascertainmentusingexistingdatainuklongitudinalandcohortstudiesasystematicreviewofmethodology
AT starrjohnm dementiaascertainmentusingexistingdatainuklongitudinalandcohortstudiesasystematicreviewofmethodology