Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The use of the integrated cognitive assessment to improve the efficiency of primary care referrals to memory services in the accelerating dementia pathway technologies study
Modarres MH, Kalafatis C, Apostolou P, Tabet N, Khaligh-Razavi SM.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2023-09-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The GP referral and ICA outcome were compared with the specialist diagnosis obtained at the memory clinic.Participants were given the option to carry out a retest visit where they were again given the chance to take the ICA test either remotely or face-to-face. Results The primary outcome of the study compared GP referral with specialist diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. From the subset of unnecessary GP referrals, the ICA classified ~72% of those as not having cognitive impairment, suggesting that these unnecessary referrals may not have been made if the ICA was in use. ICA demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% for dementia and 83% for MCI, with a specificity of 80% for both conditions in detecting cognitive impairment. Conclusion The results from this study demonstrate the potential of the ICA as a screening tool, which can be used to support accurate referrals from primary care settings, along with the work conducted in memory clinics and in secondary care. The ICA's sensitivity and specificity in detecting cognitive impairment in MCI surpassed the overall standard of care reported in existing literature.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Modarres, M. H., Kalafatis, C., Apostolou, P., Tabet, N., & Khaligh-Razavi, S. M. (2023). The use of the integrated cognitive assessment to improve the efficiency of primary care referrals to memory services in the accelerating dementia pathway technologies study. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1243316
Vancouver
Modarres MH, Kalafatis C, Apostolou P, Tabet N, Khaligh-Razavi SM. The use of the integrated cognitive assessment to improve the efficiency of primary care referrals to memory services in the accelerating dementia pathway technologies study. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2023. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2023.1243316. PMID: 37781102.
BibTeX
@article{modarres2023-37781102,
author = {Modarres, M. H. and Kalafatis, C. and Apostolou, P. and Tabet, N. and Khaligh-Razavi, S. M.},
title = {{The use of the integrated cognitive assessment to improve the efficiency of primary care referrals to memory services in the accelerating dementia pathway technologies study}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2023.1243316},
pmid = {37781102},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1243316}
}
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
- The GP referral and ICA outcome were compared with the specialist diagnosis obtained at the memory clinic.Participants were given the option to carry out a retest visit where they were again given the chance to take the ICA test either remotely or face-to-face.
- Results The primary outcome of the study compared GP referral with specialist diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.
- From the subset of unnecessary GP referrals, the ICA classified ~72% of those as not having cognitive impairment, suggesting that these unnecessary referrals may not have been made if the ICA was in use.
- ICA demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% for dementia and 83% for MCI, with a specificity of 80% for both conditions in detecting cognitive impairment.
- Conclusion The results from this study demonstrate the potential of the ICA as a screening tool, which can be used to support accurate referrals from primary care settings, along with the work conducted in memory clinics and in secondary care.
Study details
- Effect size87.5%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 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) |
| 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 37781102) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.