首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Medical Directors Association >Comparison of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Memory Tests in Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Studies
【24h】

Comparison of Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Memory Tests in Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Studies

机译:轻度认知障碍和痴呆检测中计算机化和纸张记忆试验的比较:诊断研究的系统综述与荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

ObjectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of computerized and paper-and-pencil memory tests in detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. DesignDiagnostic studies comparing computerized or paper-and-pencil memory tests with the standard diagnostic criterion for MCI or dementia were identified from OVID databases. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of memory tests for detection of MCI, and detection of dementia was the secondary outcome. Risk of bias and reporting quality in included studies was assessed. Setting and ParticipantsParticipants with MCI and dementia in any kind of setting. MeasuresBivariate random-effects models were used to combine the diagnostic performance of memory tests and presented with a summary receiver-operating characteristic curve. ResultsA total of 58 studies with 18,450 participants with mean age ranging from 55 to 84?years were included. For the verbal memory tests on patients with MCI, computerized tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.89 sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.97) and 0.82 specificity (95% CI 0.70–0.90), whereas paper-and-pencil tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.86 sensitivity (95% CI 0.82–0.90) and 0.82 specificity (95% CI 0.76–0.86). For the visual memory tests on MCI patients, computerized tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.79 sensitivity (95% CI 0.71–0.84) and 0.80 specificity (95% CI 0.71–0.86), whereas paper-and-pencil tests showed diagnostic accuracy of 0.80 sensitivity (95% CI 0.67–0.89) and 0.68 specificity (95% CI 0.51–0.81). The findings were also comparable to those with dementia. Conclusions/ImplicationsBoth verbal and visual computerized memory tests showed comparable diagnostic performance to the paper-and-pencil tests. Computerized cognitive tests show a great potential to use as an alternative to paper-and-pencil tests. When the records can be digitalized, long-term monitoring of cognitive function will be feasible for better management of dementia.
机译:Objectivesto比较计算机化和纸张记忆测试在检测轻度认知障碍(MCI)和痴呆症中的诊断性能。从Ovid数据库中识别了与MCI或DEMENDIA的标准诊断标准进行比较计算机或纸张和铅笔记忆测试的设计Diagnostic研究。主要结果是检测MCI的记忆试验的诊断性能,并且痴呆的检测是次要结果。评估包括研究中的偏见和报告质量的风险。在任何形式的环境中设置和参与者省和参与者帕蒂省和痴呆症。措施基率随机效果模型用于结合内存测试的诊断性能,并提出了摘要接收器操作特性曲线。结果总共58项研究,其中18,450名参与者,平均年龄范围为55至84岁以下。对于MCI患者的口头记忆试验,计算机化测试显示诊断精度为0.89灵敏度(95%置信区间[CI] 0.69-0.97)和0.82个特异性(95%CI 0.70-0.90),而纸张和铅笔测试显示诊断精度为0.86灵敏度(95%CI 0.82-0.90)和0.82个特异性(95%CI 0.76-0.86)。对于MCI患者的视觉记忆测试,计算机化测试显示诊断精度为0.79敏感性(95%CI 0.71-0.84)和0.80个特异性(95%CI 0.71-0.86),而纸张和铅笔测试显示诊断精度为0.80灵敏度(95%CI 0.67-0.89)和0.68个特异性(95%CI 0.51-0.81)。结果也与患有痴呆症的结果相媲美。结论/含义言语和视觉计算机化内存测试对纸张和铅笔测试显示了可比的诊断性能。计算机化的认知测试表现出用作纸张和铅笔测试的替代品的巨大潜力。当记录可以数字化时,对认知功能的长期监测对于更好的痴呆症来说是可行的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号