Towards improving diagnosis of memory loss in general practice:TIMeLi diagnostic test accuracy study protocol

Background People with cognitive problems, and their families, report distress and uncertainty whilst undergoing evaluation for dementia and perceive that traditional diagnostic evaluation in secondary care is insufficiently patient centred. The James Lind Alliance has prioritised research to investigate the role of primary care in supporting a more effective diagnostic pathway, and the topic is also of interest to health commissioners. However, there are very few studies that investigate the accuracy of diagnostic tests for dementia in primary care. Methods We will conduct a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study to evaluate the accuracy of a range of simple tests for diagnosing all-cause-dementia in symptomatic people aged over 70 years who have consulted with their general practitioner (GP). We will invite eligible people to attend a research clinic where they will undergo a range of index tests that a GP could perform in the surgery and also be assessed by a specialist in memory disorders at the same appointment. Participating GPs will request neuroimaging and blood tests and otherwise manage patients in line with their usual clinical practice. The reference standard will be the consensus judgement of three experts (neurologist, psychiatrist and geriatrician) based on information from the specialist assessment, GP records and investigations, but not including items in the index test battery. The target condition will be all-cause dementia but we will also investigate diagnostic accuracy for sub-types where possible. We will use qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with clinicians to help us understand the acceptability and feasibility of diagnosing dementia in primary care using the tests that we are investigating. Discussion Our results will help clinicians decide on which tests to perform in someone where there is concern about possible dementia and inform commissioning of diagnostic pathways

Decline in cognition from mid-life improves specificity of mini-mental state examination: diagnostic test accuracy in Caerphilly Prospective Study (CaPs)

Background:The merit of using baseline cognitive assessments in mid-life to help interpret cross-sectional cognitive tests scores in later life is uncertain. Objective:Evaluate how accuracy for diagnosing dementia is enhanced by comparing cross-sectional results to a midlife measure. Methods:Cohort study of 2,512 men with repeated measures of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) over approximately 10 years. Index test MMSE at threshold of 24 indicating normal, as a cross-sectional measure and in combination with decline in MMSE score from mid-life. Reference standard consensus clinical diagnosis of dementia by two clinicians according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Results:1,150 men participated at phase 4 of whom 75 had dementia. A cross-sectional MMSE alone produced a sensitivity of 60% (50% to 70%) and specificity 95% (94% to 97%) with a threshold of≥24 points indicating normal. For lower-scoring men in late life, with cross sectional scores of < 22, combining cross-sectional AND a three-point or more decline over time had a sensitivity of 52% (39% to 64%) and specificity 99% (99% to 100%). For higher-scoring men in later life, with cross sectional scores < 26 combining cross-sectional OR decline of at least three points had a sensitivity of 98% (92% to 100%) and specificity 38% (32% to 44%). Conclusion:It may be helpful in practice to formally evaluate cognition in mid-life as a baseline to compare with if problems develop in future, as this may enhance diagnostic accuracy and classification of people in later life

Clinical judgement by primary care physicians for the diagnosis of all-cause dementia or cognitive impairment in symptomatic people

Background: In primary care, general practitioners (GPs) unavoidably reach a clinical judgement about a patient as part of their encounter with patients, and so clinical judgement can be an important part of the diagnostic evaluation. Typically clinical decision making about what to do next for a patient incorporates clinical judgement about the diagnosis with severity of symptoms and patient factors, such as their ideas and expectations for treatment. When evaluating patients for dementia, many GPs report using their own judgement to evaluate cognition, using information that is immediately available at the point of care, to decide whether someone has or does not have dementia, rather than more formal tests. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgement for diagnosing cognitive impairment and dementia in symptomatic people presenting to primary care. To investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), and LILACs (BIREME) on 16 September 2021. Selection criteria: We selected cross-sectional and cohort studies from primary care where clinical judgement was determined by a GP either prospectively (after consulting with a patient who has presented to a specific encounter with the doctor) or retrospectively (based on knowledge of the patient and review of the medical notes, but not relating to a specific encounter with the patient). The target conditions were dementia and cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment and dementia) and we included studies with any appropriate reference standard such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD), aetiological definitions, or expert clinical diagnosis. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data separately with differences resolved by consensus discussion. We used QUADAS-2 to evaluate the risk of bias and concerns about applicability in each study using anchoring statements. We performed meta-analysis using the bivariate method. Main results: We identified 18,202 potentially relevant articles, of which 12,427 remained after de-duplication. We assessed 57 full-text articles and extracted data on 11 studies (17 papers), of which 10 studies had quantitative data. We included eight studies in the meta-analysis for the target condition dementia and four studies for the target condition cognitive impairment. Most studies were at low risk of bias as assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool, except for the flow and timing domain where four studies were at high risk of bias, and the reference standard domain where two studies were at high risk of bias. Most studies had low concern about applicability to the review question in all QUADAS-2 domains. Average age ranged from 73 years to 83 years (weighted average 77 years). The percentage of female participants in studies ranged from 47% to 100%. The percentage of people with a final diagnosis of dementia was between 2% and 56% across studies (a weighted average of 21%). For the target condition dementia, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 34% to 91% and specificity ranged from 58% to 99%. In the meta-analysis for dementia as the target condition, in eight studies in which a total of 826 of 2790 participants had dementia, the summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners was sensitivity 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43% to 72%), specificity 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%), positive likelihood ratio 5.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.2), and negative likelihood ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.61). For the target condition cognitive impairment, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 58% to 97% and specificity ranged from 40% to 88%. The summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners in four studies in which a total of 594 of 1497 participants had cognitive impairment was sensitivity 84% (95% CI 60% to 95%), specificity 73% (95% CI 50% to 88%), positive likelihood ratio 3.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7), and negative likelihood ratio 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.40). It was impossible to draw firm conclusions in the analysis of heterogeneity because there were small numbers of studies. For specificity we found the data were compatible with studies that used ICD-10, or applied retrospective judgement, had higher reported specificity compared to studies with DSM definitions or using prospective judgement. In contrast for sensitivity, we found studies that used a prospective index test may have had higher sensitivity than studies that used a retrospective index test. Authors' conclusions: Clinical judgement of GPs is more specific than sensitive for the diagnosis of dementia. It would be necessary to use additional tests to confirm the diagnosis for either target condition, or to confirm the absence of the target conditions, but clinical judgement may inform the choice of further testing. Many people who a GP judges as having dementia will have the condition. People with false negative diagnoses are likely to have less severe disease and some could be identified by using more formal testing in people who GPs judge as not having dementia. Some false positives may require similar practical support to those with dementia, but some - such as some people with depression - may suffer delayed intervention for an alternative treatable pathology

Informant accuracy of IQCODE, AD8 and GPCOGi for diagnosis of dementia: does your friend know best?

Increasing numbers of people require evaluation for possible dementia. However, research on the accuracy of informant questionnaires in primary care remains limited. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of IQCODE, AD8, and GPCOGi based on the informant's relationship to the patient. We recruited 240 participants from 21 general practices in South West England. The reference standard for a diagnosis of dementia was made by a specialist clinician using ICD-10 criteria. A threshold of greater than 3.3 on IQCODE, greater or equal to 2 on AD8 and less than 5 on the informant component of GPCOG was used to indicate an abnormal test. Of 238 participants with informant data, 131 had dementia, 60 had CIND, and 47 had normal cognition. Median informant age was 70 years (IQR 60 years to 78 years). 71% of informants were female and 56% were spouses. On all three questionnaires, compared to spouses, adult descendants tended to score participants more cognitively impaired, whereas friends scored participants less cognitively impaired. However, there was little evidence of difference by informant type once fully adjusted. Sensitivity by informant type ranged from 91 to 100% for IQCODE, 94-100% for AD8 and 99% to100% for GPCOGi. There was no significant difference in sensitivity by informant type. Specificity by informant type ranged from 25 to 79% for IQCODE, 13-75% for AD8 and 17-38% for GPCOGi. Adult descendants tended to have the lowest specificity at 25% (95% CI 10-47%) for IQCODE, 13% (95% CI 3-32%) for AD8 and 17% (95% CI 5-37%) for GPCOGi. Friends tended to have the highest specificity at 79% (95% CI 49-95%) for IQCODE, 75% (95% CI 48-93%) for AD8 and 38% (95% CI 15-64%) for GPCOGi. An informant of any relationship type, using IQCODE, AD8 or GPCOGi may be useful for ruling out dementia but not for ruling it in. We found no evidence of difference between spouse or adult descendants but friends performed significantly better overall on IQCODE and AD8. [Abstract copyright: © 2025. The Author(s).

A diagnostic test accuracy study investigating general practitioner clinical impression and brief cognitive assessments for dementia in primary care, compared to specialized assessment

Background:Many health systems are interested in increasing the number of uncomplicated and typical dementia diagnoses that are made in primary care, but the comparative accuracy of tests is unknown. Objective:Calculate diagnostic accuracy of brief cognitive tests in primary care. Methods:We did a diagnostic test accuracy study in general practice, in people over 70 years who had consulted their GP with cognitive symptoms but had no prior diagnosis of dementia. The reference standard was specialist assessment, adjudicated for difficult cases, according to ICD-10. We assessed 16 index tests at a research clinic, and additionally analyzed referring GPs clinical judgement. Results:240 participants had a median age of 80 years, of whom 126 were men and 132 had dementia. Sensitivity of individual tests at the recommended thresholds ranged from 56% for GP judgement (specificity 89%) to 100% for MoCA (specificity 16%). Specificity of individual tests ranged from 4% for Sniffin’ sticks (sensitivity 100%) to 91% for Timed Up and Go (sensitivity 23%). The 95% centile of test duration in people with dementia ranged from 3 minutes for 6CIT and Time and Change, to 16 minutes for MoCA. Combining tests with GP judgement increased test specificity and decreased sensitivity: e.g., MoCA with GP Judgement had specificity 87% and sensitivity 55%. Conclusions:Using GP judgement to inform selection of tests was an efficient strategy. Using IQCODE in people who GPs judge as having dementia and 6CIT in people who GPs judge as having no dementia, would be a time-efficient and accurate diagnostic assessment.The original protocol for the study is available at https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-016-0475-

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide