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
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
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