This study aimed to validate the TICS and modified TICS (TICSm) in Korean elderly population and to compare MCI and dementia screening ability between TICS and TICSm. TICS and TICSm were administered to 70 cognitively normal (CN), 75 MCI, and 85 dementia subjects, with mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and other cognitive and functional measures. TICS and TICSm scores were highly correlated with other global cognitive and functional scores. The CN vs. dementia discrimination ability of both instruments was as excellent as that of MMSE (sensitivity/specificity at optimal cutoff: 87.1/90.1 for TICS; 88.2/90.0 for TICSm). Although their CN vs. MCI discrimination performances were comparable to that of MMSE, they were far from perfect (sensitivity/specificity: 69.3/68.6 for TICS; 73.3/67.1 for TICSm). There was no significant difference in dementia or MCI screening accuracy between TICS and TICSm. Both of them also showed high test-retest reliability. Our findings indicate that TICS and TICSm are reliable and as valid as MMSE in regard of screening cognitively impaired elderly. In terms of the comparison between TICSm and TICS, however, TICSm has little advantage over TICS for screening dementia and even MCI, in spite of longer administration time and more efforts required.

译文

本研究旨在验证韩国老年人群的TICS和改良TICS (TICSm),并比较TICS和TICSm之间的MCI和痴呆症筛查能力。对70名认知正常 (CN),75名MCI和85名痴呆症受试者进行了TICS和TICSm,并进行了迷你精神状态检查 (MMSE) 和其他认知和功能测量。TICS和TICSm评分与其他全球认知和功能评分高度相关。两种仪器的CN与痴呆鉴别能力与MMSE一样出色 (最佳临界点的敏感性/特异性: TICS的87.1/90.1; TICSm的88.2/90.0)。尽管它们的CN与MCI区分性能与MMSE相当,但它们远非完美 (敏感性/特异性: TICS的69.3/68.6; TICSm的73.3/67.1)。TICS和TICSm在痴呆或MCI筛查准确性方面没有显着差异。两者也都显示出很高的重测可靠性。我们的发现表明,在筛查认知受损的老年人方面,TICS和TICSm是可靠的,并且与MMSE一样有效。然而,就TICSm和TICS之间的比较而言,TICSm在筛查痴呆症甚至MCI方面比TICS没有什么优势,尽管给药时间更长,需要更多的努力。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录