Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives To longitudinally assess on-road driving performance in healthy older adults and those with early-stage dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). Design A prospective longitudinal study. Setting Large urban medical center and surrounding area. Participants A sample of 58 healthy controls, 21 participants with very mild DAT, and 29 participants with mild DAT participated. DAT was diagnosed using validated clinical diagnostic criteria and staged according to the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. Measurements Healthy controls and individuals with very mild DAT and mild DAT were administered a standardized on-road driving assessment over repeated times of testing. Results Subjects in the CDR=1 group (mild DAT) had a faster rate of receiving a rating of not safe on the driving test than subjects in the CDR=0 group (healthy controls; log rank test, P=.006), and the survival function of the CDR=0.5 group (very mild DAT) fell between those of the CDR=0 and CDR=1 groups. A Cox proportional hazards model indicated a significant difference in survival functions between the CDR=0 and CDR=1 groups after baseline age was controlled for (P<.001). Cox regression analysis also indicated that baseline age was a significant risk factor for a rating of "not safe" (P=.002). Conclusion This study provides longitudinal evidence for a decline in driving performance over time, primarily in early-stage DAT, and supports the need not only for driving assessments, but also for reevaluation of individuals with very mild and mild DAT.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 34 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.34 of the 58 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 21 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 14511152)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 34 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total 59 / 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.

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

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Duchek, J. M., Carr, D. B., Hunt, L., Roe, C. M., Xiong, C., Shah, K., et al. (2003). Longitudinal driving performance in early-stage dementia of the Alzheimer type. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51481.x

Vancouver

Duchek JM, Carr DB, Hunt L, Roe CM, Xiong C, Shah K, et al. Longitudinal driving performance in early-stage dementia of the Alzheimer type. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2003. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51481.x. PMID: 14511152.

BibTeX

@article{duchek2003-14511152,
  author  = {Duchek, J. M. and Carr, D. B. and Hunt, L. and Roe, C. M. and Xiong, C. and Shah, K. and Morris, J. C.},
  title   = {{Longitudinal driving performance in early-stage dementia of the Alzheimer type}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51481.x},
  pmid    = {14511152},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51481.x}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →