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.

48/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Introduction Test the validity and reliability of the Quick Dementia Rating System (QDRS), a rapid dementia staging tool. Methods The QDRS was tested in 267 patient-caregiver dyads compared with Clinical Dementia Ratings (CDR), neuropsychological testing, and gold standard measures of function, mood, and behavior. Psychometric properties including, item variability, floor and ceiling effects, concurrent and construct validity, and internal consistency were determined. The QDRS was used to derive an independent CDR and sum of boxes. Interscale reliability between QDRS and CDR was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUC) tested discrimination properties of QDRS across CDR stages. Results QDRS scores increased with higher CDR staging and poorer neuropsychological performance (p's Discussion The QDRS validly and reliably differentiates individuals with and without dementia and accurately stages dementia without extensive training or clinician input, and is highly correlated with our gold standard measures. The QDRS provides a rapid method to determine study eligibility; stage patients in clinical practice; and improve case ascertainment in population studies.

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

APA 7th

Galvin, J. E. (2015). THE QUICK DEMENTIA RATING SYSTEM (QDRS): A RAPID DEMENTIA STAGING TOOL. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2015.03.003

Vancouver

Galvin JE. THE QUICK DEMENTIA RATING SYSTEM (QDRS): A RAPID DEMENTIA STAGING TOOL. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2015. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2015.03.003. PMID: 26140284.

BibTeX

@article{galvin2015-26140284,
  author  = {Galvin, J. E.},
  title   = {{THE QUICK DEMENTIA RATING SYSTEM (QDRS): A RAPID DEMENTIA STAGING TOOL}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.dadm.2015.03.003},
  pmid    = {26140284},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2015.03.003}
}

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

Methods The QDRS was tested in 267 patient-caregiver dyads compared with Clinical Dementia Ratings (CDR), neuropsychological testing, and gold standard measures of function, mood, and behavior.
Results QDRS scores increased with higher CDR staging and poorer neuropsychological performance (p's <.001).

Why it matters

The Quick Dementia Rating System was tested in 267 patient-caregiver dyads and differentiated people with and without dementia and staged dementia accurately without extensive training or clinician input. This is a staging and case-ascertainment tool, not a treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 48/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands))
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring: journal h-index 86 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	1 / 5	2015 — 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)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 194 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	14.9 citations a year over 13 year(s) since 2015
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 9 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 84 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author James E. Galvin: h-index 52 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	New York University: institution h-index 1,612 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26140284)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	48 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 23.

Later studies that cite this one

9 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Caregiving

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →