This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

ROC analysis revealed a better score for those areas found under the curve for the CSDD-as against the DSM-IV criteria (0.96). With a cut-off score of >6, the CSDD yielded the highest sensitivity score (100%), plus produced a specificity of 81% and a negative predictive value of 100%. It also had a positive predictive value of 69%. The validity of the CSDD was found to be better for the group experiencing cognitive impairment than with the non-cognitive impairment group in terms of the agreement of CSDD items between patients and caregivers. The CSDD yielded a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.87). CSDD is a valid tool to use for identifying depressive disorders among Thai LTC home residents - those experiencing and those not experiencing cognitive impairment.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Wongpakaran, N., & Wongpakaran, T. (2013). Cornell scale for depression in dementia: study of residents in a northern thai long-term care home. Psychiatry investigation. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2013.10.4.359

Vancouver

Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T. Cornell scale for depression in dementia: study of residents in a northern thai long-term care home. Psychiatry investigation. 2013. doi:10.4306/pi.2013.10.4.359. PMID: 24474984.

BibTeX

@article{wongpakaran2013-24474984,
  author  = {Wongpakaran, Nahathai and Wongpakaran, Tinakon},
  title   = {{Cornell scale for depression in dementia: study of residents in a northern thai long-term care home}},
  journal = {Psychiatry investigation},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.4306/pi.2013.10.4.359},
  pmid    = {24474984},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2013.10.4.359}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

ROC analysis revealed a better score for those areas found under the curve for the CSDD-as against the DSM-IV criteria (0.96).
With a cut-off score of >6, the CSDD yielded the highest sensitivity score (100%), plus produced a specificity of 81% and a negative predictive value of 100%.
It also had a positive predictive value of 69%.
The validity of the CSDD was found to be better for the group experiencing cognitive impairment than with the non-cognitive impairment group in terms of the agreement of CSDD items between patients and caregivers.
The CSDD yielded a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.87).

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychiatry investigation)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	1 / 5	2013 — within 20 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24474984)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	25 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total	45 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery from nearby years

Also tagged “assisted-living”

199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →