Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is a widely-used, rapid assessment tool for the screening of cognitive decline though its evaluation and interpretation are still not uniform. The aim of present study was to investigate the difference in sensitivity and specificity of two types of CDTs and to compare the clinical benefits of quantitative and semiquantitative scoring systems.
Objective: To investigate the difference in sensitivity and specificity of two types of CDTs and to compare the clinical benefits of quantitative and semiquantitative scoring systems.
Methods: Six hundred and ninety-two participants with or without dementia completed 10-item CDTs in nursing homes in two counties in southern Hungary. The dementia was not further subclassified. The results of the two tests, CDT1 (representing five minutes to a quarter to four) and CDT2 (representing ten past five), were evaluated quantitatively and semiquantitatively.
Results: In the quantitative evaluation, the sensitivity and the specificity for the diagnosis of dementia at cut-off scores of 7 points were determined: 87.1% and 51.9%, respectively, for CDT1, and 81.7% and 57% for CDT2, respectively. The semiquantitative analysis revealed a sensitivity of 67.3% and a specificity of 65.3% for CDT1, and of 64.6% and 66.6% for CDT2, respectively.
Conclusion: The results of CDT tests do not appear to depend on the positions of the clock hands and additionally suggest that the quantitative evaluation method is more sensitive than the semiquantitative method.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JAD-131313 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!