Home › Research › Biomarkers
Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines during Dementia Work-Up in a Real-World Setting: A Study from the Registry of Dementias of Girona
Turró-Garriga O, Calvó-Perxas L, Vilalta-Franch J, Hernández-Ferrándiz M, Flaqué M, Linares M, Cullell M, Gich J et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2017-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background There are several position statements and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for diagnosing dementia. Objective Our aims were to evaluate the adherence to CPG among specialists in the 7 memory clinics included in the Registry of Dementias of Girona (ReDeGi), and to compare the results between 2007-2011 and 2012-2015. We also determined the time and number of visits required to achieve a diagnosis, the supplementary tests ordered, and the drugs prescribed according to dementia subtypes. Methods Medical charts of a stratified random sample of 475 ReDeGi cases were reviewed. Basic dementia work-up was evaluated using as a reference evidence-based CPG. An Index of Adherence (AI) was calculated using the following items in the medical chart: cognitive symptomatology; functional disability evaluation; physical examination; neurological examination; psychiatric examination; brief cognitive examination; activities of daily living performance examination; blood test; structural neuroimaging (CT-scan or MRI). Results The mean AI to CPG among specialists was of 8.2 points, and it improved from 7.9 points in 2007-2011 to 8.5 points in 2012-2015 (Cohen's d = 0.46). A lower adherence was detected in the most severe cases. A dementia diagnosis required 3.5 visits, regardless of the subtype of dementia, although milder cases required more time, more visits, and more supplementary tests than severe cases. Conclusion The adherence to CPG in the catchment area of the ReDeGi is high, and an epidemiological surveillance system such as the ReDeGi may help in improving it. Dementia guidelines should establish procedures adapted to clinical practice, with simplified recommendations for most severe cases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Turró-Garriga, O., Calvó-Perxas, L., Vilalta-Franch, J., Hernández-Ferrándiz, M., Flaqué, M., Linares, M., et al. (2017). Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines during Dementia Work-Up in a Real-World Setting: A Study from the Registry of Dementias of Girona. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170284
Vancouver
Turró-Garriga O, Calvó-Perxas L, Vilalta-Franch J, Hernández-Ferrándiz M, Flaqué M, Linares M, et al. Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines during Dementia Work-Up in a Real-World Setting: A Study from the Registry of Dementias of Girona. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-170284. PMID: 28697570.
BibTeX
@article{turrogarriga2017-28697570,
author = {Turró-Garriga, O. and Calvó-Perxas, L. and Vilalta-Franch, J. and Hernández-Ferrándiz, M. and Flaqué, M. and Linares, M. and Cullell, M. and Gich, J. and others},
title = {{Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines during Dementia Work-Up in a Real-World Setting: A Study from the Registry of Dementias of Girona}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.3233/jad-170284},
pmid = {28697570},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170284}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Objective Our aims were to evaluate the adherence to CPG among specialists in the 7 memory clinics included in the Registry of Dementias of Girona (ReDeGi), and to compare the results between 2007-2011 and 2012-2015.
- Results The mean AI to CPG among specialists was of 8.2 points, and it improved from 7.9 points in 2007-2011 to 8.5 points in 2012-2015 (Cohen's d = 0.46).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28697570) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “adherence”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “adherence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.