Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
The Contribution of Routinely Collected Clinical Data to Dementia Identification in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study
Vicente-García C, Gállego-Royo A, Esteban EMA, Aguilar-Latorre A, Méndez-López F, Magallón-Botaya MR.. Research Square, 2026-10-28
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background Routinely collected Electronic Health Record (EHR) data have shown potential for supporting dementia identification; however, the contribution of specific sociodemographic and clinical variables recorded in clinical practice remains insufficiently explored. This study aimed to determine which of these variables were associated with recorded dementia in Primary Care (PC) EHRs. Methods A cross-sectional secondary analysis was conducted using routinely collected primary care EHR data from adults aged ≥ 60 years in a region of Spain. Recorded dementia was identified with the P70 ICPC-1 code. Sociodemographic characteristics, diagnostic tests, medical history, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and laboratory tests were analysed. Associations between these variables and recorded dementia were examined, followed by binary logistic regression models to assess model performance using Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R², sensitivity, and specificity. Results The prevalence of recorded dementia was 11.25% and was higher among women across all age groups. Most routinely recorded clinical variables were significantly associated with recorded dementia, although effect sizes were generally small. The strongest relationship was observed for the P20 ICPC-1 code (memory, concentration, or orientation impairment, or hallucinations), followed by cognitive and functional assessments and polypharmacy. Including P20 substantially improved model performance, increasing the Nagelkerke pseudo-R² from 0.25 to 0.64 (sensitivity, 15% to 62%; specificity, 98% to 99.60%). Conclusions Sociodemographic and clinical variables routinely recorded in PC EHRs may contribute to dementia identification. The strong contribution of P20 highlights the potential value of routinely recorded cognitive symptoms in the diagnostic process and supports further investigation of their temporal relationship with dementia recording. Trial registrations: OSF doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/B7AEV.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Vicente-García, C., Gállego-Royo, A., Esteban, E. M. A., Aguilar-Latorre, A., Méndez-López, F., & Magallón-Botaya, M. R. (2026). The Contribution of Routinely Collected Clinical Data to Dementia Identification in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10985825/v1
Vancouver
Vicente-García C, Gállego-Royo A, Esteban EMA, Aguilar-Latorre A, Méndez-López F, Magallón-Botaya MR. The Contribution of Routinely Collected Clinical Data to Dementia Identification in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10985825/v1.
BibTeX
@article{vicentegarcia2026-ff872dac,
author = {Vicente-García, C. and Gállego-Royo, A. and Esteban, E. M. A. and Aguilar-Latorre, A. and Méndez-López, F. and Magallón-Botaya, M. R.},
title = {{The Contribution of Routinely Collected Clinical Data to Dementia Identification in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10985825/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10985825/v1}
}
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
- This study aimed to determine which of these variables were associated with recorded dementia in Primary Care (PC) EHRs.
- Results The prevalence of recorded dementia was 11.25% and was higher among women across all age groups.
- Most routinely recorded clinical variables were significantly associated with recorded dementia, although effect sizes were generally small.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Effect size11.25%; 99.60%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 31 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 19 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.