Riley Charlotte Olivia, McKinstry Brian, Fairhurst Karen
The University of Edinburgh Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK.
JRSM Open. 2022 Sep 1;13(9):20542704221115956. doi: 10.1177/20542704221115956. eCollection 2022 Sep.
The COVID19 pandemic highlighted the need for remote diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia. Telephone screening for dementia may facilitate prompt diagnosis and optimisation of care. However, it is not clear how accurate telephone screening tools are compared with face-to-face screening. We searched Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus for all English language papers published between January 1975 and February 2021 which compared telephone screening for dementia/ mild cognitive impairment and an in-person reference standard, performed within six-weeks. We subsequently searched paper reference lists and contacted authors if data were missing. Three reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed study quality using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Twenty-one studies including 944 participants were found. No one test appears more accurate, with similar validities as in-person testing. Cut-offs for screening differed between studies based on demographics and acceptability thresholds and meta-analysis was not appropriate. Overall the results suggest telephone screening is acceptably sensitive and specific however, given the limited data, this finding must be treated with some caution. It may not be suitable for those with hearing impairments and anxiety around technology. Few studies were carried out in general practice where most screening occurs and further research is recommended in such lower prevalence environments.
新冠疫情凸显了对认知障碍和痴呆症进行远程诊断的必要性。通过电话筛查痴呆症可能有助于及时诊断并优化护理。然而,与面对面筛查相比,电话筛查工具的准确性如何尚不清楚。我们检索了考科蓝图书馆、MEDLINE、Embase、科学网、PubMed和Scopus,查找1975年1月至2021年2月期间发表的所有英文论文,这些论文比较了在六周内进行的痴呆症/轻度认知障碍电话筛查与面对面参考标准。随后,我们检索了论文参考文献列表,并在数据缺失时联系了作者。三位评审员独立筛选纳入研究、提取数据,并使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所批判性评估工具的改编版评估研究质量。共找到21项研究,包括944名参与者。没有一种测试显得更准确,其有效性与面对面测试相似。基于人口统计学和可接受阈值,不同研究的筛查临界值有所不同,因此不适合进行荟萃分析。总体而言,结果表明电话筛查的敏感性和特异性尚可,但鉴于数据有限,这一发现必须谨慎对待。它可能不适用于听力受损以及对技术感到焦虑的人群。大多数筛查是在全科医疗中进行的,但很少有研究在这种环境下开展,建议在这种患病率较低的环境中进行进一步研究。