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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |