Suppr超能文献

The validity of 3 clinical diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

作者信息

Kukull W A, Larson E B, Reifler B V, Lampe T H, Yerby M S, Hughes J P

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle 98195.

出版信息

Neurology. 1990 Sep;40(9):1364-9. doi: 10.1212/wnl.40.9.1364.

Abstract

To examine the validity of criteria-based (clinical) diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), 4 physicians experienced in the evaluation of dementia patients applied 3 sets of diagnostic criteria to each of 62 patients based on standardized medical record information. Diagnostic outcome was validated by neuropathologic examination (completed previously) for all (43) demented patients and 4 nondemented patients and by follow-up in the remainder (15) with no dementia. Raters were blind to the composition of the study group as well as to the clinical and pathologic diagnoses. We evaluated 3 diagnostic criteria sets for AD: the American Psychiatric Association diagnostic criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III), the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (NINCDS), and the Eisdorfer and Cohen research diagnostic criteria for primary neuronal degeneration (ECRDC). ECRDC had the highest specificity (0.88) but also the greatest odds of false-negative diagnosis (LRneg = 0.61, sensitivity = 0.46). NINCDS had the best sensitivity (0.92, specificity = 0.65), and DSM-III showed intermediate values (sensitivity = 0.76, specificity = 0.80). We conclude that the investigator or clinician who wishes to ensure that patients classified as AD are more likely to be AD should choose DSM-III, whereas the investigator who wishes to include the greatest number of AD cases, seldom assigning a diagnosis of no AD to a true case, should choose NINCDS.

摘要

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