Hogervorst E, Barnetson L, Jobst K A, Nagy Z, Combrinck M, Smith A D
University of Oxford, Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Aging (OPTIMA), Oxford, UK.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2000 Mar-Apr;11(2):107-13. doi: 10.1159/000017222.
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.
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。