Prince Martin J, de Rodriguez Juan Llibre, Noriega L, Lopez A, Acosta Daisy, Albanese Emiliano, Arizaga Raul, Copeland John R M, Dewey Michael, Ferri Cleusa P, Guerra Mariella, Huang Yueqin, Jacob K S, Krishnamoorthy E S, McKeigue Paul, Sousa Renata, Stewart Robert J, Salas Aquiles, Sosa Ana Luisa, Uwakwa Richard
Section of Epidemiology, Health Services Research, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2008 Jun 24;8:219. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-219.
The criterion for dementia implicit in DSM-IV is widely used in research but not fully operationalised. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group sought to do this using assessments from their one phase dementia diagnostic research interview, and to validate the resulting algorithm in a population-based study in Cuba.
The criterion was operationalised as a computerised algorithm, applying clinical principles, based upon the 10/66 cognitive tests, clinical interview and informant reports; the Community Screening Instrument for Dementia, the CERAD 10 word list learning and animal naming tests, the Geriatric Mental State, and the History and Aetiology Schedule - Dementia Diagnosis and Subtype. This was validated in Cuba against a local clinician DSM-IV diagnosis and the 10/66 dementia diagnosis (originally calibrated probabilistically against clinician DSM-IV diagnoses in the 10/66 pilot study).
The DSM-IV sub-criteria were plausibly distributed among clinically diagnosed dementia cases and controls. The clinician diagnoses agreed better with 10/66 dementia diagnosis than with the more conservative computerized DSM-IV algorithm. The DSM-IV algorithm was particularly likely to miss less severe dementia cases. Those with a 10/66 dementia diagnosis who did not meet the DSM-IV criterion were less cognitively and functionally impaired compared with the DSMIV confirmed cases, but still grossly impaired compared with those free of dementia.
The DSM-IV criterion, strictly applied, defines a narrow category of unambiguous dementia characterized by marked impairment. It may be specific but incompletely sensitive to clinically relevant cases. The 10/66 dementia diagnosis defines a broader category that may be more sensitive, identifying genuine cases beyond those defined by our DSM-IV algorithm, with relevance to the estimation of the population burden of this disorder.
《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)中隐含的痴呆症标准在研究中被广泛使用,但尚未完全实施。10/66痴呆症研究小组试图通过其一阶段痴呆症诊断研究访谈中的评估来实现这一点,并在古巴的一项基于人群的研究中验证所得算法。
该标准被转化为一种基于临床原则的计算机化算法,应用于10/66认知测试、临床访谈和 informant 报告;痴呆症社区筛查工具、CERAD 10词表学习和动物命名测试、老年精神状态以及病史和病因学时间表 - 痴呆症诊断与亚型。在古巴,该算法针对当地临床医生的DSM-IV诊断和10/66痴呆症诊断进行了验证(最初在10/66试点研究中根据临床医生的DSM-IV诊断进行概率校准)。
DSM-IV子标准在临床诊断的痴呆症病例和对照中分布合理。临床医生的诊断与10/66痴呆症诊断的一致性优于与更保守的计算机化DSM-IV算法的一致性。DSM-IV算法特别容易遗漏病情较轻的痴呆症病例。与DSM-IV确诊病例相比,那些被诊断为10/66痴呆症但不符合DSM-IV标准的人在认知和功能上的受损程度较轻,但与无痴呆症的人相比仍有严重受损。
严格应用的DSM-IV标准定义了一个以明显损害为特征的明确痴呆症狭窄类别。它可能具有特异性,但对临床相关病例的敏感性不完全。10/66痴呆症诊断定义了一个更广泛的类别,可能更敏感,识别出超出我们DSM-IV算法定义的真正病例,与该疾病人群负担的估计相关。