We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
Validity of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies.
Neurology 1999 December 11
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical validity of clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB).
METHODS: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the clinical criteria of the Consortium on dementia with Lewy Bodies (CDLB) in 18 patients with autopsy-proven DLB and in 76 patients with dementia not associated with Lewy bodies, using postmortem diagnosis as a gold standard.
RESULTS: CDLB criteria had either high sensitivity or high specificity, but no set of criteria simultaneously provided both high sensitivity and high specificity. Clinical criteria had higher predictive validity in patients with pure DLB than in patients with DLB and AD. Seventy-eight percent of patients with pure DLB had two or more major criteria, compared with 44% of patients with DLB and AD (p<0.02). If the nine patients with DLB and AD were excluded from the DLB group, the CDLB criteria for probable DLB had sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 85%. CDLB criteria for probable DLB (two or more major criteria) distinguished DLB from AD with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 64%.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed CDLB criteria have high negative predictive value and thus do well at excluding patients with DLB. Positive predictive value of 75% can be achieved by a combination of any three major or minor criteria, providing the analysis is confined to patients with mild to moderate dementia. Criteria were most accurate if confined to patients with pure DLB who had mild to moderate dementia.
METHODS: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the clinical criteria of the Consortium on dementia with Lewy Bodies (CDLB) in 18 patients with autopsy-proven DLB and in 76 patients with dementia not associated with Lewy bodies, using postmortem diagnosis as a gold standard.
RESULTS: CDLB criteria had either high sensitivity or high specificity, but no set of criteria simultaneously provided both high sensitivity and high specificity. Clinical criteria had higher predictive validity in patients with pure DLB than in patients with DLB and AD. Seventy-eight percent of patients with pure DLB had two or more major criteria, compared with 44% of patients with DLB and AD (p<0.02). If the nine patients with DLB and AD were excluded from the DLB group, the CDLB criteria for probable DLB had sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 85%. CDLB criteria for probable DLB (two or more major criteria) distinguished DLB from AD with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 64%.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed CDLB criteria have high negative predictive value and thus do well at excluding patients with DLB. Positive predictive value of 75% can be achieved by a combination of any three major or minor criteria, providing the analysis is confined to patients with mild to moderate dementia. Criteria were most accurate if confined to patients with pure DLB who had mild to moderate dementia.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2023 July
Euglycemic Ketoacidosis in Two Patients Without Diabetes After Introduction of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.Diabetes Care 2023 November 22
ASA Consensus-based Guidance on Preoperative Management of Patients on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Anesthesiology 2023 November 21
Tranexamic Acid for Traumatic Injury in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Bias-Adjusted Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Annals of Emergency Medicine 2023 November 22
Association between postinduction hypotension and postoperative mortality: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2023 November 22
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app