Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:16:30.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic utility of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) and its combination with the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) in a memory clinic-based population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2009

P. Hancock  and
A. J. Larner
P. Hancock
Affiliation:
Brooker Centre, Runcorn, U.K.
A. J. Larner*
Affiliation:
Cognitive Function Clinic, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, U.K.
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: A. J. Larner, Cognitive Function Clinic, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Lower Lane, Fazakerley, Liverpool, U.K. Phone: +44 151 529 5727; Fax: +44 151 529 8552. Email: a.larner@thewaltoncentre.nhs.uk.
Get access

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to assess the clinical utility of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) in patients referred to memory clinics, alone and in combination with the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) and the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE).

Methods: This pragmatic prospective study was based on consecutive referrals attending with an informant (n = 144) to two memory clinics over a 12-month period. Patients were diagnosed using standard clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia (DSM-IV) as gold standard (dementia prevalence = 59%). The IQCODE was administered to informants, and the ACE-R and/or MMSE to most patients.

Results: The IQCODE proved acceptable to informants, and was quick and easy to use. Using traditional parameters of diagnostic utility (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, likelihood ratios), the performance of the IQCODE at optimal test accuracy was highly sensitive (0.86) for the diagnosis of dementia but specificity was poor (0.39) with suboptimal positive predictive value (0.67) and small or unimportant likelihood ratios. Overall diagnostic accuracy based on area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.71. Combining the IQCODE with either ACE-R or MMSE greatly improved accuracy, specificity and positive predictive value when the tests were used in series, but not when used in parallel.

Conclusion: In a memory clinic based population, the IQCODE proved sensitive for the diagnosis of dementia but overall diagnostic accuracy was suboptimal. Combining the IQCODE in series with the ACE-R or MMSE greatly improved diagnostic utility.

Keywords

dementiadiagnosisIQCODEACE-RMMSEmemory clinic
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 526 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn, text revision (DSM−IVTR). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Bossuyt, P. M. et al. (2003). The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clinical Chemistry, 49, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen, B., O'Neill, B., Evans, J. J., Coen, R. F. and Lawlor, B. A. (2007). A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 78, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flicker, L., Logiudice, D., Carlin, J. B. and Ames, D. (1997). The predictive value of dementia screening instruments in clinical populations. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 203–209.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, D. R. and Cummings, J. L. (1999). Evaluating dementia screening tests. Methodologic standards to rate their performance. Neurology, 52, 224–227.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. and Larner, A. J. (2007). The diagnosis of dementia: diagnostic accuracy of an instrument measuring activities of daily living in a clinic-based population. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 23, 133–139.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. and Larner, A. J. (2008a). Cambridge Behavioural Inventory for the diagnosis of dementia. Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry, 12 (7), 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, P. and Larner, A. J. (2008b). Utility of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index as a diagnostic instrument to differentiate dementia from “not dementia” in memory clinics. Alzheimer's and Dementia, 4 (Suppl. 2), T520 (abstract P3–014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, P. and Larner, A. J. (2009). Clinical utility of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in memory clinics. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 13. Epublished ahead of print, doi: 10.1080/13651500802684500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorm, A. F. (1994). A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation. Psychological Medicine, 24, 145–153.Google Scholar
Jorm, A. F. (2004). The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): a review. International Psychogeriatrics, 16, 1–19.Google Scholar
Jorm, A. F. and Jacomb, P. A. (1989). The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): socio-demographic correlates, reliability, validity and some norms. Psychological Medicine, 19, 1015–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorm, A. F., Scott, R., Cullen, J. S. and MacKinnon, A. J. (1991). Performance of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) as a screening test for dementia. Psychological Medicine, 21, 785–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L. and Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613.Google Scholar
Larner, A. J. (2005). “Who came with you?” A diagnostic observation in patients with memory problems? Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 76, 1739.Google Scholar
Larner, A. J. (2007). Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R) in day-to-day clinical practice. Age and Ageing, 36, 685–686.Google Scholar
Larner, A. J. (2009). Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-revised: cross-sectional and longitudinal use for cognitive assessment. Neurodegenerative Diseases (Suppl. 1), 194.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, A., Khalilian, A., Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Christensen, H. and Mulligan, R. (2003). Improving screening accuracy for dementia in a community sample by augmenting cognitive testing with informant report. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mioshi, E., Dawson, K., Mitchell, J., Arnold, R. and Hodges, J. R. (2006). The Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1078–1085.Google Scholar
Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute of the Alzheimer's Association and the National Institute on Aging Working Group. (1998). Consensus report of the Working Group on molecular and biochemical markers of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of Aging, 19, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratford, J. A., LoGiudice, D., Flicker, L., Cook, R., Waltrowicz, W. and Ames, D. (2003). A memory clinic at a geriatric hospital: a report on 577 patients assessed with the CAMDEX over 9 years. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 319–326.Google Scholar
Wedderburn, C. et al. (2008). The utility of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory in neurodegenerative disease. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 79, 500–503.Google Scholar