Here are links to some articles on The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.
Diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia: A bivariate meta-analysis. [PubMed Abstract] [Full-Text HTML] [Full-Text PDF]. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;36(2):239-251. doi: 10.1002/gps.5436. Epub 2020 Oct 9.
There are 135 similar articles in PubMed.
The above article was cited by 33 articles in PubMed.
Abstract
Objective
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale comprising global score (CDR-GS) and sum of boxes scores (CDR-SB) is commonly used in staging cognitive impairment; however, its diagnostic accuracy is not well clarified. The meta-analysis aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the CDR for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia in older populations.
Methods
Studies examining the diagnostic accuracy of the CDR for MCI or dementia against reference standards were included from seven electronic databases. The bivariate analysis with a random-effects model was adopted to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the CDR for MCI and dementia.
Results
Fifteen studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of the CDR-GS (n = 13) or CDR-SB (n = 5) for MCI or dementia were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the CDR-GS for MCI were 93% and 97%, respectively. With respect to dementia, the CDR-GS had superior pooled specificity compared to the CDR-SB (99% vs. 94%), while similar sensitivities were found between the CDR-GS and CDR-SB (both 87%). Significant moderators of an old age, a high educational level, a high prevalence of MCI or dementia, being in a developing country, and a lack of informants’ observations may affect the estimation of the sensitivity or specificity of the CDR.
Conclusions
Evidence supports the CDR being useful for detecting MCI and dementia; applying the CDR for staging cognitive impairment in at risk populations should be considered. Furthermore, including objective observations from relevant informants or proxies to increase the accuracy of the CDR for dementia is suggested.
Evaluation of the Electronic Clinical Dementia Rating for Dementia Screening [PubMed Abstract] [Full-Text HTML] [Full-Text PDF]. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Sep 5;6(9):e2333786. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33786.
There were 101 similar articles in PubMed.
The above article has been cited by one article in PubMed.
Cited by
Abstract
Importance: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) is a well-validated instrument widely used to detect and stage dementia due to Alzheimer disease. The digital Electronic Clinical Dementia Rating (eCDR) can be remotely self-administered and automatically scored, with potential to facilitate efficient dementia screening and staging.
Objective: To evaluate the association of the eCDR with the CDR and other in-clinic assessments for screening older adults for cognitive impairment.
Design, setting, and participants: This multisite, cross-sectional study used baseline data from a longitudinal, observational study from 2020 to 2023, including up to 3 years of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from 3 Alzheimer Disease Research Centers and the Brain Health Registry. Participants (aged ≥55 years, with a study partner, and no acute or unstable major medical conditions) were recruited during in-clinic visits or by automated emails.
Exposures: Participants completed the Uniform Data Set Version 3 (UDS; including the CDR) in supervised clinical research settings, and then completed the eCDR remotely, online and unsupervised, using their own device.
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were eCDR scores (item; categorical box and global; continuous box and global), CDR scores (item; categorical box and global), and UDS assessment scores. Associations were evaluated using linear and logistic regressions.
Results: A total of 3565 participants were contacted, and 288 were enrolled. Among 173 participants with item-level data (mean [SD] age, 70.84 [7.65] years; 76 women [43.9%]), eCDR to CDR concordance was 90% or higher for 33 items (63%) and 70% to 89% for 13 items (25%). Box (domain) level concordance ranged from 80% (memory) to 99% (personal care). The global score concordance rate was 81%. κ statistics were fair to moderate. Among 206 participants with box and global scores (mean [SD] age, 71.34 [7.68] years; 95 women [46.1%]), eCDR continuous global score was associated with CDR global (categorical) score with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.70-0.87). Correlations between eCDR and in-clinic UDS assessments were similar to those between CDR sum of box scores and the same in-clinic assessments.
Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that the eCDR is valid and has potential use for screening and assessment of older adults for cognitive and functional decline related to Alzheimer disease. Instrument optimization and validation in diverse cohorts in remote settings are crucial for evaluating scalability and eCDR utility in clinical research, trials, and health care settings.
