Home › Research › Risk factors
Color Vision Impairment Differentiates Alzheimer Dementia From Dementia With Lewy Bodies
Patrick M Flanigan, Mitra A Khosravi, James B Leverenz, Babak Tousi. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology, 2018-03
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Fifty-two patients were included in this study with a median age of 77 years, of which 44% were female. No significant differences in gender, age, or Montreal Cognitive Assessment existed among patients with AD (n = 15), pro-AD (n = 5), pro-DLB (n = 8), and DLB (n = 24). Of the 52 patients, 4 (2 AD, 1 DLB, and 1 pro-AD) had CVI history from a young age and were excluded from final analyses. New-onset CVI prevalence differed significantly based on diagnosis: patients with pro-AD (20%), patients with AD (15%), patients with pro-DLB (38%), and patients with DLB (78%, P < .001). In a stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine factors associated with CVI, "diagnosis type" as a binary variable (DLB or pro-DLB vs AD or pro-AD) was the only variable retained in the model (odds ratio = 9.8 [95% CI: 2.3-42.1], P < .001). Color vision impairment in patients with DLB showed a prevalence similar to the core features of DLB (∼80%) and can be supportive to a diagnosis of DLB versus AD. Pending prospective confirmation of our findings, simple online color vision testing could be incorporated into multivariate diagnostic tools to possibly improve accuracy of early diagnosis of DLB.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Flanigan, P. M., Khosravi, M. A., Leverenz, J. B., & Tousi, B. (2018). Color Vision Impairment Differentiates Alzheimer Dementia From Dementia With Lewy Bodies. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988718767579
Vancouver
Flanigan PM, Khosravi MA, Leverenz JB, Tousi B. Color Vision Impairment Differentiates Alzheimer Dementia From Dementia With Lewy Bodies. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. 2018. doi:10.1177/0891988718767579. PMID: 29658429.
BibTeX
@article{flanigan2018-29658429,
author = {Flanigan, Patrick M and Khosravi, Mitra A and Leverenz, James B and Tousi, Babak},
title = {{Color Vision Impairment Differentiates Alzheimer Dementia From Dementia With Lewy Bodies}},
journal = {Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1177/0891988718767579},
pmid = {29658429},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988718767579}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Fifty-two patients were included in this study with a median age of 77 years, of which 44% were female.
- No significant differences in gender, age, or Montreal Cognitive Assessment existed among patients with AD (n = 15), pro-AD (n = 5), pro-DLB (n = 8), and DLB (n = 24).
- Of the 52 patients, 4 (2 AD, 1 DLB, and 1 pro-AD) had CVI history from a young age and were excluded from final analyses.
- New-onset CVI prevalence differed significantly based on diagnosis: patients with pro-AD (20%), patients with AD (15%), patients with pro-DLB (38%), and patients with DLB (78%, P < .001).
- In a stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine factors associated with CVI, "diagnosis type" as a binary variable (DLB or pro-DLB vs AD or pro-AD) was the only variable retained in the model (odds ratio = 9.8 [95% CI: 2.3-42.1], P < .001).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants15
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology) |
| 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 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 15 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29658429) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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 Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.