Nagy Z, Esiri M M, Hindley N J, Joachim C, Morris J H, King E M, McDonald B, Litchfield S, Barnetson L, Jobst K A, Smith A D
OPTIMA, Department of Neuropathology, University of Oxford, UK.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1998 Jul-Aug;9(4):219-26. doi: 10.1159/000017050.
In this study we analysed the accuracy of two sets of clinical diagnostic criteria, the NINCDS/ADRDA and DSM-III-R, in relation to the currently used pathological diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD), the Khachaturian criteria, the Tierney A3 criteria and the CERAD protocol. The sensitivity of the individual clinical diagnostic criteria, NINCDS/ADRDA and DSM-III-R, is poor (34-58%) irrespective of the pathological diagnostic criteria applied for the definite diagnosis of AD. The combination of the NINCDS/ ADRDA 'possible' and 'probable dementia of the Alzheimer type' (DAT) categories has a high sensitivity (91-98%). However the combination resulted in very poor specificity (40-61 %). Thus, none of the clinical diagnostic criteria is satisfactory. We found similar results when we analysed the predictive value of these clinical diagnostic criteria. The positive predictive value of NINCDS 'probable DAT' category and that of the DAT diagnosis by DSM-III-R is very high (89-100%). This makes the use of these categories suitable for research purposes. However, the negative predictive value of both diagnoses is poor (33-63%), making these criteria unsuitable for diagnostic purposes in clinical practice.
在本研究中,我们分析了两套临床诊断标准(NINCDS/ADRDA和DSM-III-R)相对于目前用于阿尔茨海默病(AD)的病理诊断标准(哈恰图良标准、蒂尔尼A3标准和CERAD方案)的准确性。无论应用何种病理诊断标准来确诊AD,单独的临床诊断标准NINCDS/ADRDA和DSM-III-R的敏感性都很差(34%-58%)。NINCDS/ADRDA的“可能”和“很可能的阿尔茨海默型痴呆”(DAT)类别相结合具有较高的敏感性(91%-98%)。然而,这种结合导致特异性非常差(40%-61%)。因此,没有一套临床诊断标准是令人满意的。当我们分析这些临床诊断标准的预测价值时,发现了类似的结果。NINCDS“很可能的DAT”类别和DSM-III-R的DAT诊断的阳性预测值非常高(89%-100%)。这使得使用这些类别适用于研究目的。然而,这两种诊断的阴性预测值都很差(33%-63%),这使得这些标准不适用于临床实践中的诊断目的。