Suppr超能文献

痴呆的诊断:阿尔茨海默病的NINCDS/ADRDA标准与CERAD组织病理学标准的评分者间可靠性评估及准确性

Diagnosing dementia: interrater reliability assessment and accuracy of the NINCDS/ADRDA criteria versus CERAD histopathological criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

作者信息

Hogervorst E, Barnetson L, Jobst K A, Nagy Z, Combrinck M, Smith A D

机构信息

University of Oxford, Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Aging (OPTIMA), Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2000 Mar-Apr;11(2):107-13. doi: 10.1159/000017222.

Abstract

We investigated the interrater reliability and accuracy of two independent medical doctors in using NINCDS/ADRDA criteria to classify 82 elderly subjects enrolled in OPTIMA, a longitudinal study investigating dementia. Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement (0.5) in overall classification of dementia type, and almost perfect agreement (0.9) on the absence or presence of dementia. Combining NINCDS/ADRDA 'possible' and 'probable' Alzheimer's disease (AD) categories produced substantial agreement (0.7). Comparison with CERAD histopathological criteria for AD showed that combining 'possible' and 'probable' AD resulted in a high sensitivity and accuracy, but a low specificity. To increase specificity, the NINCDS/ADRDA 'probable AD' category should be used alone. An important finding was that the accuracy of diagnoses of AD made from the case notes alone was not different from the diagnoses obtained following active involvement with participants.

摘要

我们调查了两名独立医生运用NINCDS/ADRDA标准对参与OPTIMA(一项调查痴呆症的纵向研究)的82名老年受试者进行痴呆症分类时的评分者间信度和准确性。卡方统计显示,在痴呆症类型的总体分类中一致性中等(0.5),而在痴呆症的有无方面几乎完全一致(0.9)。将NINCDS/ADRDA的“可能”和“很可能”阿尔茨海默病(AD)类别合并,一致性较高(0.7)。与AD的CERAD组织病理学标准相比,将“可能”和“很可能”AD合并导致高敏感性和准确性,但特异性较低。为提高特异性,应单独使用NINCDS/ADRDA的“很可能AD”类别。一个重要发现是,仅根据病例记录做出的AD诊断准确性与在积极参与受试者评估后获得的诊断并无差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验