Jacob K S, Senthil Kumar P, Gayathri K, Abraham S, Prince M J
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007 Aug;116(2):125-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00923.x.
This study attempted to evaluate sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the diagnosis of dementia made by trained community health workers.
A total of 1,000 subjects over the age of 65 years were recruited for the study. The community health workers identified nine subjects as having dementia. This was compared against an education adjusted diagnosis of dementia made in accordance with the 10/66 dementia research group protocol.
The sensitivity and specificity of the community health worker diagnosis was 3.8% and 99.4% respectively. The false positive rate and positive predictive values were 55.6% and 44.4%, respectively. The false negative rate and negative predictive value were 10.3% and 89.7% respectively. Similar values were obtained against a DSM IV diagnosis. Subjects with dementia who were correctly diagnosed by the community health workers and those whose condition was missed did not differ significantly on socio-demographic and clinical variables.
Informal screening by community health workers resulted in low sensitivity and positive predictive values. Screening strategies in situations of low prevalence are not effective.
本研究试图评估经过培训的社区卫生工作者对痴呆症诊断的敏感性、特异性和预测价值。
共招募了1000名65岁以上的受试者参与研究。社区卫生工作者识别出9名患有痴呆症的受试者。将此结果与根据10/66痴呆症研究组方案进行的教育程度调整后的痴呆症诊断结果进行比较。
社区卫生工作者诊断的敏感性和特异性分别为3.8%和99.4%。假阳性率和阳性预测值分别为55.6%和44.4%。假阴性率和阴性预测值分别为10.3%和89.7%。与DSM-IV诊断结果相比,得到了相似的值。被社区卫生工作者正确诊断出患有痴呆症的受试者和那些被漏诊的受试者在社会人口统计学和临床变量方面没有显著差异。
社区卫生工作者的非正式筛查导致敏感性和阳性预测值较低。在低患病率情况下的筛查策略无效。