China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Dementia Assessment in Asian Americans
Published in Gwen Yeo, Linda A. Gerdner, Dolores Gallagher-Thompson, Ethnicity and the Dementias, 2018
Cecilia S. Han, Steven Z. Chao
The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI; Teng et al., 1994) is a 25-item test consisting of subtests derived from the MMSE (Folstein et al., 1975), Hasegawa Dementia Screening Scale (HDSS; Hasegawa, 1983), and the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) Test (Teng & Chui, 1987). With an average administration time from 15 to 20 minutes and a total score ranging from 0 to 100, the CASI assesses domains including attention, mental manipulation, orientation, learning and memory, language, visuospatial construction, semantic verbal fluency, abstract reasoning and judgment. A cutoff score of 86 or higher has been reported to have a sensitivity of 96.5% and specificity of 92% while a cutoff of 81 or higher has a sensitivity of 82.5% and 98.9% in detection of dementia (Graves et al., 1996).
Can Physical Activity Prevent Mental Illness?
Published in Henning Budde, Mirko Wegner, The Exercise Effect on Mental Health, 2018
Viviane Grassmann, George Mammen, Guy Faulkner
Most studies evaluated people that developed more than one type of dementia (n=21), but three studies evaluated only people with Alzheimer’s disease. All studies used well-validated methods such as DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-III, III-R or IV), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA) and/or Association Internationale pour la Recherche et l’Enseignement en Neurosciences (AIREN), International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) and/or Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) to diagnose dementia. Regarding PA, all but one study used a self-report measure. Only eight studies (Buchman et al. 2012; de Bruijn et al. 2013; Gureje, Ogunniyi, Kola, & Abiona 2011; Laurin et al. 2001; Luck et al. 2014; Morgan et al. 2012; Podewils et al. 2005; Scarmeas et al. 2009) used valid and reliable questionnaires; however, those studies were heterogeneous, as none of them used the same measure. Podewils et al. (2005) and Morgan et al. (2012), used similar measures (the Minnesota Leisure Time Activity Questionnaire), although Podewils et al. (2005) used a modified version that included more activities.
N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists in improving cognitive deficits following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review
Published in Brain Injury, 2022
Moein Khormali, Sama Heidari, Sana Ahmadi, Melika Arab Bafrani, Vali Baigi, Mahdi Sharif-Alhoseini
Out of three studies included, two were performed with the primary objective of assessing safety, tolerability, and dose-escalation of traxoprodil. However, some efficacy outcomes were also measured in these two studies. In the study by Merchant et al. (73), in which 45 patients with mild and moderate TBI were included, it was mentioned that possibly because of the relatively low sample size, it was not possible to find a significant difference between the placebo and intervention groups in terms of efficacy outcomes. Bullock et al. (74) observed a trend toward a better outcome in patients with severe TBI, who received traxoprodil compared with the historical controls. This difference even reached the statistical significance level for patients receiving the 72-hour dosing regimen. Yurkewicz et al. (72), in a parallel RCT on 404 patients with severe TBI, investigated the efficacy of the 72-hour traxoprodil dosing regimen. Although patients in the traxoprodil group showed more improvements in cognitive outcomes, i.e., in GOS, Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), the observed differences did not reach a statistically significant level.
Prior endogenous and exogenous estrogen and incident dementia in the 10th decade of life: The 90+ Study
Published in Climacteric, 2020
A. Paganini-Hill, M. M. Corrada, C. H. Kawas
Participants in The 90+ Study were asked to undergo longitudinal in-person evaluations, either at the research office or at their home. The evaluation included a neurological examination (with mental status testing)22 and assessment of functional abilities23 by a trained physician or nurse practitioner and a neuropsychological test battery that included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)24. For participants whose poor health, frailty, disability, or unwillingness did not allow an in-person evaluation, information was obtained by telephone or with an informant. Participants evaluated by telephone completed the short version of the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI-short)25. For participants evaluated through informants, the Dementia Questionnaire (DQ)26 was completed over the telephone. All participants (or their informants) completed a questionnaire that included demographics (including education), medical history, and medication use. In addition, informants of all participants were asked about the participant’s cognitive status and functional abilities using a mailed questionnaire. Evaluations were repeated every 6 months for in-person participants and annually for participants evaluated by telephone and through informants. The DQ was completed for all participants shortly after death.
Factors Influencing Family Surrogates’ Intention with Regard to Do-Not-Resuscitate Directive for Patients with Dementia
Published in Clinical Gerontologist, 2019
Yu-Chiung Fang, Ming-Chyi Pai, Liang-Chao Wang, Ya-Ping Yang, Chung-Yi Li, Feng-Ping Lee, Jing-Jy Wang
CDR was developed for the evaluation of dementia severity (Hughes, Berg, Danziger, Coben, & Martin, 1982). We used modified Chinese version of the CDR in this study (Lin & Liu, 2003). This modified Chinese version of the CDR, which had been evaluated and widely accepted to be used in Taiwanese population, has a substantial inter-rater agreement (κ = .63) and internal consistency (κ = .62–.79) between six domains. This scaling system also showed sufficient criterion validity and discriminant validity related to education level and severity of dementia as compared with cognitive abilities screening instrument (CASI) (Lin & Liu, 2003).