Cargando…
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare
BACKGROUND: Cognitive disorders and dementia have an important effect on individual independence and orientation. According to the Alzheimer's Disease International (ADI) 75% of people with dementia are not diagnosed; this may be as high as 90% in some low- and middle-income countries. This sys...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8827177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35139803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03730-8 |
_version_ | 1784647573703753728 |
---|---|
author | Karimi, Leila Mahboub–Ahari, Alireza Jahangiry, Leila Sadeghi-Bazargani, Homayoun Farahbakhsh, Mostafa |
author_facet | Karimi, Leila Mahboub–Ahari, Alireza Jahangiry, Leila Sadeghi-Bazargani, Homayoun Farahbakhsh, Mostafa |
author_sort | Karimi, Leila |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cognitive disorders and dementia have an important effect on individual independence and orientation. According to the Alzheimer's Disease International (ADI) 75% of people with dementia are not diagnosed; this may be as high as 90% in some low- and middle-income countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the test performance of screening tools and compare them pairwise. The findings of our study can support countries in planning to establish and care for mild cognitive impairment in primary health centers. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, Dare, All EBM Reviews, CRD (OVID), and Proquest were searched from 2012 to November 2021. The risk of bias was assessed through the QUADAS-2 instrument. Given the high heterogeneity between studies, a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes for diagnostic accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve indices). I(2) test was used for assessing heterogeneity and predefined subgroup analyses were performed using participants’ age, country’s income, and sample size of studies. RESULTS: A systematic search identified 18,132 records, of which, 20 studies were included in the quality assessment, and six were included in quantitative analysis. None of the studies had examined the feasibility or efficiency of mass screening. According to a pairwise comparison, IQCODE, AD8 and GPCOG showed equal or better diagnostic performance relative to the MMSE in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The random-effect model for the MMSE showed the pooled sensitivity equal to 0.73 (95% CI 0.57–0.90), the pooled specificity equal to 0.83 (95% CI 0.75—0.90), and the pooled AUC equal to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83–0.93). CONCLUSION: Several benefits have been attached to short tests making them a suitable choice for use in primary healthcare settings. Considering factors such as accuracy, time of application, ease of scoring, and utilization charges, tests such as IQCODE, AD8, and GPCOG or appropriate combination with counterpart tools seem to be good alternatives to the use of the MMSE in primary care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8827177 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88271772022-02-10 A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare Karimi, Leila Mahboub–Ahari, Alireza Jahangiry, Leila Sadeghi-Bazargani, Homayoun Farahbakhsh, Mostafa BMC Psychiatry Research BACKGROUND: Cognitive disorders and dementia have an important effect on individual independence and orientation. According to the Alzheimer's Disease International (ADI) 75% of people with dementia are not diagnosed; this may be as high as 90% in some low- and middle-income countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the test performance of screening tools and compare them pairwise. The findings of our study can support countries in planning to establish and care for mild cognitive impairment in primary health centers. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, Dare, All EBM Reviews, CRD (OVID), and Proquest were searched from 2012 to November 2021. The risk of bias was assessed through the QUADAS-2 instrument. Given the high heterogeneity between studies, a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect sizes for diagnostic accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve indices). I(2) test was used for assessing heterogeneity and predefined subgroup analyses were performed using participants’ age, country’s income, and sample size of studies. RESULTS: A systematic search identified 18,132 records, of which, 20 studies were included in the quality assessment, and six were included in quantitative analysis. None of the studies had examined the feasibility or efficiency of mass screening. According to a pairwise comparison, IQCODE, AD8 and GPCOG showed equal or better diagnostic performance relative to the MMSE in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The random-effect model for the MMSE showed the pooled sensitivity equal to 0.73 (95% CI 0.57–0.90), the pooled specificity equal to 0.83 (95% CI 0.75—0.90), and the pooled AUC equal to 0.88 (95% CI 0.83–0.93). CONCLUSION: Several benefits have been attached to short tests making them a suitable choice for use in primary healthcare settings. Considering factors such as accuracy, time of application, ease of scoring, and utilization charges, tests such as IQCODE, AD8, and GPCOG or appropriate combination with counterpart tools seem to be good alternatives to the use of the MMSE in primary care. BioMed Central 2022-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8827177/ /pubmed/35139803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03730-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Karimi, Leila Mahboub–Ahari, Alireza Jahangiry, Leila Sadeghi-Bazargani, Homayoun Farahbakhsh, Mostafa A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
title | A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
title_full | A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
title_fullStr | A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
title_short | A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
title_sort | systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on screening for mild cognitive impairment in primary healthcare |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8827177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35139803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03730-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT karimileila asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT mahboubaharialireza asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT jahangiryleila asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT sadeghibazarganihomayoun asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT farahbakhshmostafa asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT karimileila systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT mahboubaharialireza systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT jahangiryleila systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT sadeghibazarganihomayoun systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare AT farahbakhshmostafa systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofstudiesonscreeningformildcognitiveimpairmentinprimaryhealthcare |