• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

评估临床痴呆评定量表的有效性:阿尔茨海默病注册协会(CERAD)的经验。阿尔茨海默病注册协会

Estimating the validity of the clinical Dementia Rating Scale: the CERAD experience. Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease.

作者信息

Fillenbaum G G, Peterson B, Morris J C

机构信息

Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham 27710, USA.

出版信息

Aging (Milano). 1996 Dec;8(6):379-85. doi: 10.1007/BF03339599.

DOI:10.1007/BF03339599
PMID:9061124
Abstract

The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is broadly accepted by clinicians as a staging measure for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Extensive assessment of its validity is, however, lacking. We examined the concurrent and predictive validity of both summary CDR scores (global CDR, Sum of Boxes [sum of scores on the individual components]) and scores on two (Memory and Orientation) of the CDR's six components (the other four components are judgement and problem-solving, community affairs, home and hobbies, personal care) using cross-sectional, longitudinal and survival information on 434 community-resident probable AD patients. Cross-sectionally the Orientation box score correlated substantially with an independent neuropsychology measure of orientation, but the Memory box score correlated more poorly with an independent measure of memory than with any other neuropsychology measure. The relationship of the global CDR score and the Sum of Boxes score to scores on neuropsychology measures was comparable to that of the Orientation and Memory box scores. Longitudinally, Memory box score a year later was predicted equally well by the other box scores (personal care excepted). The individual components were comparable to both summary CDR scores in predicting time to death. The CDR has content and criterion validity. However, since intentionally all components measure aspects of cognitive functioning, they are closely related. Nevertheless, sufficient distinctions remain that assessment in each area is still warranted.

摘要

临床痴呆评定量表(CDR)被临床医生广泛认可为阿尔茨海默病(AD)的分期指标。然而,对其有效性的广泛评估仍显不足。我们利用434名社区居住的可能患有AD患者的横断面、纵向和生存信息,检验了CDR总分(总体CDR,即各分项得分之和)以及CDR六个分项中的两项(记忆和定向)得分的同时效度和预测效度(其他四个分项为判断与解决问题能力、社区事务、家庭与爱好、个人生活自理能力)。在横断面研究中,定向分项得分与定向能力的独立神经心理学测量指标显著相关,但记忆分项得分与记忆能力的独立测量指标的相关性,相比与其他任何神经心理学测量指标的相关性都要弱。总体CDR得分和各分项得分之和与神经心理学测量指标得分的关系,与定向和记忆分项得分的情况相当。在纵向研究中,一年后的记忆分项得分由其他分项得分(除个人生活自理能力外)预测的效果相同。在预测死亡时间方面,各分项与CDR总分的预测能力相当。CDR具有内容效度和效标效度。然而,由于所有分项有意地均测量认知功能的各个方面,它们之间密切相关。尽管如此,仍存在足够的差异,因此每个领域的评估仍然是必要的。

相似文献

1
Estimating the validity of the clinical Dementia Rating Scale: the CERAD experience. Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease.评估临床痴呆评定量表的有效性:阿尔茨海默病注册协会(CERAD)的经验。阿尔茨海默病注册协会
Aging (Milano). 1996 Dec;8(6):379-85. doi: 10.1007/BF03339599.
2
Staging dementia using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes scores: a Texas Alzheimer's research consortium study.使用临床痴呆评定量表框和评分对痴呆进行分期:德克萨斯州阿尔茨海默病研究联盟的研究
Arch Neurol. 2008 Aug;65(8):1091-5. doi: 10.1001/archneur.65.8.1091.
3
Characterizing Clinical Progression in Cognitively Unimpaired Older Individuals with Brain Amyloid: Results from the A4 Study.在认知正常的老年脑淀粉样蛋白患者中描述临床进展:A4 研究结果。
J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2024;11(4):814-822. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2024.123.
4
Progression of Alzheimer's disease during a three-year follow-up using the CERAD-NB total score: Kuopio ALSOVA study.使用 CERAD-NB 总分对阿尔茨海默病进行为期三年的随访:库奥皮奥 ALSOVA 研究。
Int Psychogeriatr. 2013 Aug;25(8):1335-44. doi: 10.1017/S1041610213000653. Epub 2013 May 16.
5
Clinical dementia rating: a reliable and valid diagnostic and staging measure for dementia of the Alzheimer type.临床痴呆评定量表:一种用于阿尔茨海默型痴呆的可靠且有效的诊断及分期测量工具。
Int Psychogeriatr. 1997;9 Suppl 1:173-6; discussion 177-8. doi: 10.1017/s1041610297004870.
6
Neuropsychological and functional measures of severity in Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal dementia, and semantic dementia.阿尔茨海默病、额颞叶痴呆和语义性痴呆严重程度的神经心理学及功能测量
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2004 Oct-Dec;18(4):202-7.
7
An Arabic Version of the Cognitive Subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog): Reliability, Validity, and Normative Data.阿尔茨海默病评估量表认知分量表(ADAS-Cog)的阿拉伯文版本:信度、效度和常模数据。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;60(1):11-21. doi: 10.3233/JAD-170222.
8
Validation of the new interpretive guidelines for the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes score in the national Alzheimer's coordinating center database.国家阿尔茨海默病协调中心数据库中临床痴呆评定量表方框总分新解释指南的验证
Arch Neurol. 2010 Jun;67(6):746-9. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.115.
9
Stages of Objective Memory Impairment Predict Alzheimer's Disease Neuropathology: Comparison with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes.客观记忆损伤阶段预测阿尔茨海默病神经病理学:与临床痴呆评定量表-框总数的比较。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;80(1):185-195. doi: 10.3233/JAD-200946.
10
Can the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Identify Mild Cognitive Impairment and Predict Cognitive and Functional Decline?临床痴呆评定量表能否识别轻度认知障碍并预测认知和功能衰退?
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2016;41(5-6):292-302. doi: 10.1159/000447057. Epub 2016 Jun 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Performance of a Digital Cognitive Assessment in Predicting Dementia Stages Delineated by the Dementia Severity Rating Scale: Retrospective Study.数字认知评估在预测由痴呆严重程度评定量表划分的痴呆阶段中的表现:一项回顾性研究。
JMIR Aging. 2025 Feb 26;8:e65292. doi: 10.2196/65292.
2
Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review.额颞叶痴呆患者的认知储备:一项系统综述
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2024 Oct;46(8):718-741. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2024.2410207. Epub 2024 Oct 17.
3
Reliability of the assessment of the clinical dementia rating scale from the analysis of medical records in comparison with the reference method.
从病历分析评估临床痴呆评定量表与参考方法的可靠性比较。
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2024 Sep 5;16(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s13195-024-01567-9.
4
Development and Validity of Norms for Cognitive Dispersion on the Uniform Data Set 3.0 Neuropsychological Battery.《统一数据集中认知分散的规范制定与有效性:3.0 神经心理测验版》。
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2024 Aug 24;39(6):732-746. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acae005.
5
Association Between Executive Dysfunction-Related Activities of Daily Living Disability and Clinical Dementia Rating Domain Patterns in Patients With Vascular Dementia and Age-Matched Patients With Alzheimer's Dementia.血管性痴呆患者及年龄匹配的阿尔茨海默病痴呆患者中,执行功能障碍相关日常生活能力残疾与临床痴呆评定领域模式之间的关联。
Psychiatry Investig. 2023 Dec;20(12):1126-1132. doi: 10.30773/pi.2023.0092. Epub 2023 Dec 18.
6
Disrupted Excitation-Inhibition Balance in Cognitively Normal Individuals at Risk of Alzheimer's Disease.认知正常的阿尔茨海默病高危个体中兴奋-抑制平衡紊乱。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2023;95(4):1449-1467. doi: 10.3233/JAD-230035.
7
Evaluation of the Electronic Clinical Dementia Rating for Dementia Screening.电子临床痴呆评定量表用于痴呆筛查的评估。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Sep 5;6(9):e2333786. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33786.
8
Disrupted excitation-inhibition balance in cognitively normal individuals at risk of Alzheimer's disease.患阿尔茨海默病风险的认知正常个体的兴奋-抑制平衡失调。
bioRxiv. 2023 Aug 22:2023.08.21.554061. doi: 10.1101/2023.08.21.554061.
9
Ecological validity of cognitive fluctuations in dementia with Lewy bodies.路易体痴呆认知波动的生态效度。
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2024 Jan;30(1):35-46. doi: 10.1017/S1355617723000255. Epub 2023 Apr 14.
10
Statistical harmonization of everyday functioning and dementia-related behavioral measures across nine surveys and trials.九项调查和试验中日常功能及痴呆相关行为指标的统计协调。
Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2023 Mar 15;15(1):e12412. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12412. eCollection 2023 Jan-Mar.