The progressive increase of Alzheimer’s disease has generated interest in its early detection with cognitive screening tests being a useful tool, however, they need to be culturally adapted, objective and reliable. In Peru, this need is greater since the educational level of the elderly population is mostly low. The aim of the present study is to know the estimate sensitivity and specificity of FOTOTEST against MMSE for the screening/detection of cognitive impairment, analyzing the relationship of these cognitive tests with one of functional activity. 107 elderly people, aged 60-89 years, were evaluated. The Yesavage scale for geriatric depression was used, the functional activities questionnaire of Pfeffer, MMSE, and FOTOTEST. Pearson’s analysis showed a significant positive correlation between MMSE/FOTOTEST (Pearson 0.386, p <0.003), whereas only MMSE showed a significant negative correlation with PFAQ (Pearson -0.320, p <0.013). However, FOTOTEST did not show a significant correlation with PFAQ (Pearson -0.067, p <0.613). In addition, the percentage of effectiveness and specificity estimated for FOTOTEST was 100.00% and 92.68%, respectively, higher than the MMSE, with an estimated percentage of effectiveness being 83.33%, and specificity of 34.14%. We conclude that FOTOTEST would be a more useful test for the detection of cognitive impairment than MMSE.
Specificity
Concurrent Validity of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory versus the ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteria among Patients with Parkinson’s Disease.
Objective: To examine the concurrent validity of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory for quantifying depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease, using the ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteria as the gold standard, and to determine if the somatization items considered are pertinent.
Methods: The study involved one hundred and forty consecutive PD patients –102 men and 38 women– with a mean age of 68.7 years and mean disease duration of 6.7 years. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios were obtained with a 95% CI. ROC Curves (AUC) were also performed.
Results: Based on ROC measurement of discriminative ability, our results suggest that both scales were poor at recognizing mild depression, somewhat better at recognizing moderate depression and adequate for distinguishing severe depression, though with poor specificity. Comparisons of HDRS-21, HDRS-12, BDI-21 and BDI-16 to determine concurrent validity all gave similar results for each depression level and no important differences between the complete scales (all 21 items) and abbreviated forms (without somatic items) were noted.
Conclusions: We conclude that both scales possess similar psychometric properties, but our results cannot be compared with those of other studies that used DSM-IV criteria as their gold standard. These observations led to the following conclusions: (1) the evaluation scales and criteria that comprise them were not designed for PD; (2) the somatic items observed in our patients were a product of PD; and (3) as the severity of the illness increased, so did the number of items that were confused as elements of depression.
