Is status a zero-sum game? Zero-sum beliefs increase people's preference for dominance but not prestige.

Why do people often pursue social rank using coercive and potentially costly dominance-oriented strategies (grounded in fear and intimidation) rather than noncoercive prestige-oriented strategies (grounded in respect and admiration)? In 10 studies (N = 3,372, including a high-powered preregistered replication), we propose that people's beliefs about the nature of social hierarchies shape their preference for dominance strategies. Specifically, we find that zero-sum beliefs about social hierarchies-beliefs that one person's rise in social rank inevitably comes at others' expense-drive the preference for dominance-oriented, but not prestige-oriented, approaches to status. The more participants viewed social hierarchies as zero-sum, the more they were willing to use dominance tactics and the more interested they were in reading books about how to use such tactics. Moreover, we find evidence that zero-sum beliefs about social hierarchies causally increase the preference for dominance-oriented, but not prestige-oriented, strategies for gaining rank, and that both objective factors in the organizational environment and people's subjective interpretations of these environments can trigger this effect. We discuss implications for the intragroup and intergroup dynamics of attaining and retaining high social rank. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Frailty and stroke thrombectomy outcomes-an observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) can improve outcomes following ischaemic stroke. Patient selection for MT is predominantly based on physiological and imaging parameters. We assessed whether people living with pre-stroke frailty had differing outcomes following MT. METHODS: We included consecutive patients undergoing MT at a UK comprehensive stroke centre. We calculated a cumulative deficits frailty index to identify pre-stroke frailty in those patients presenting directly to the centre. Frailty was defined as an index score ≥ 0.24. We assessed univariable and multivariable association between pre-stroke frailty and stroke outcomes. Our primary outcomes were modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: Of 175 patients who underwent MT (2014-2018), we identified frailty in 49 (28%). Frail and non-frail patients had similar rates of thrombolysis administration, successful recanalization and onset to recanalization times. Those with pre-stroke frailty had higher 24 hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (12(IQR: 8-17) versus 3(IQR: 2-13); P = 0.001); were less likely to be independent (mRS 0-2: 18% versus 61%; P < 0.001) and more likely to die (47% versus 14%; P < 0.001) within 90 days. Adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and thrombolysis, frailty remained a strong, independent predictor of poor clinical outcome at 90 days (Death OR: 3.12 (95% CI: 1.32-7.4); dependency OR: 3.04 (95%CI: 1.10-8.44). Age was no longer a predictor of outcome when adjusted for frailty. CONCLUSION: Pre-stroke frailty is prevalent in real-world patients eligible for MT and is an important predictor of poor outcomes. Routine assessment of pre-stroke frailty could help decision-making around patient selection for MT.

Frailty and cerebrovascular disease: Concepts and clinical implications for stroke medicine.

Frailty is a distinctive health state in which the ability of older people to cope with acute stressors is compromised by an increased vulnerability brought by age-associated declines in physiological reserve and function across multiple organ systems. Although closely associated with age, multimorbidity, and disability, frailty is a discrete syndrome that is associated with poorer outcomes across a range of medical conditions. However, its role in cerebrovascular disease and stroke has received limited attention. The estimated rise in the prevalence of frailty associated with changing demographics over the coming decades makes it an important issue for stroke practitioners, cerebrovascular research, clinical service provision, and stroke survivors alike. This review will consider the concept and models of frailty, how frailty is common in cerebrovascular disease, the impact of frailty on stroke risk factors, acute treatments, and rehabilitation, and considerations for future applications in both cerebrovascular clinical and research settings.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the detection of dementia within community dwelling populations.

BACKGROUND: Various tools exist for initial assessment of possible dementia with no consensus on the optimal assessment method. Instruments that use collateral sources to assess change in cognitive function over time may have particular utility. The most commonly used informant dementia assessment is the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy will help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice, research and policy. OBJECTIVES: Our primary obective was to determine the accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE for detection of dementia within community dwelling populations. Our secondary objective was to describe the effect of heterogeneity on the summary estimates. We were particularly interested in the traditional 26-item scale versus the 16-item short form; and language of administration. We explored the effect of varying the threshold IQCODE score used to define 'test positivity'. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources on 28 January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources relevant or specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastrict and Leuven); DARE (York University); ARIF (Birmingham University). We used sensitive search terms based on MeSH terms and other controlled vocabulary. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in community settings that used (not necessarily exclusively) the IQCODE to assess for presence of dementia and, where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. Our intention with limiting the search to a 'community' setting was to include those studies closest to population level assessment. Within our predefined community inclusion criteria, there were relevant papers that fulfilled our definition of community dwelling but represented a selected population, for example stroke survivors. We included these studies but performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of these less representative populations on the summary results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. For quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) we used the QUADAS 2 tool. We included test accuracy data on the IQCODE used at predefined diagnostic thresholds. Where data allowed, we performed meta-analyses to calculate summary values of sensitivity and specificity with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pre-specified analyses to describe the effect of IQCODE format (traditional or short form) and language of administration for the IQCODE. MAIN RESULTS: From 16,144 citations, 71 papers described IQCODE test accuracy. We included 10 papers (11 independent datasets) representing data from 2644 individuals (n = 379 (14%) with dementia). Using IQCODE cut-offs commonly employed in clinical practice (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) the sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE for diagnosis of dementia across the studies were generally above 75%. Taking an IQCODE threshold of 3.3 (or closest available) the sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85); specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); positive likelihood ratio was 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 7.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.29). Comparative analysis suggested no significant difference in the test accuracy of the 16 and 26-item IQCODE tests and no significant difference in test accuracy by language of administration. There was little difference in sensitivity across our predefined diagnostic cut-points. There was substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses removing potentially unrepresentative populations in these studies made little difference to the pooled data estimates. The majority of included papers had potential for bias, particularly around participant selection and sampling. The quality of reporting was suboptimal particularly regarding timing of assessments and descriptors of reproducibility and inter-observer variability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Published data suggest that if using the IQCODE for community dwelling older adults, the 16 item IQCODE may be preferable to the traditional scale due to lesser test burden and no obvious difference in accuracy. Although IQCODE test accuracy is in a range that many would consider 'reasonable', in the context of community or population settings the use of the IQCODE alone would result in substantial misdiagnosis and false reassurance. Across the included studies there were issues with heterogeneity, several potential biases and suboptimal reporting quality.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the detection of dementia within a secondary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of dementia relies on the presence of new-onset cognitive impairment affecting an individual's functioning and activities of daily living. The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) is a questionnaire instrument, completed by a suitable 'informant' who knows the patient well, designed to assess change in functional performance secondary to cognitive change; it is used as a tool for identifying those who may have dementia. In secondary care there are two specific instances where patients may be assessed for the presence of dementia. These are in the general acute hospital setting, where opportunistic screening may be undertaken, or in specialist memory services where individuals have been referred due to perceived cognitive problems. To ensure an instrument is suitable for diagnostic use in these settings, its test accuracy must be established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE for detection of dementia in a secondary care setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources on the 28th of January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS Previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection (includes Conference Proceedings Citation Index) (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven); DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects - via the Cochrane Library); HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database via the Cochrane Library) and ARIF (Birmingham University). We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on IQCODE for dementia diagnosis to try to find additional studies. We developed a sensitive search strategy; search terms were designed to cover key concepts using several different approaches run in parallel and included terms relating to cognitive tests, cognitive screening and dementia. We used standardised database subject headings such as MeSH terms (in MEDLINE) and other standardised headings (controlled vocabulary) in other databases, as appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in secondary-care settings, which included (not necessarily exclusively) IQCODE to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. For the 'secondary care' setting we included all studies which assessed patients in hospital (e.g. acute unscheduled admissions, referrals to specialist geriatric assessment services etc.) and those referred for specialist 'memory' assessment, typically in psychogeriatric services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches, and reviewed abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. Two independent assessors checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool, and reporting quality using the STARD tool. MAIN RESULTS: From 72 papers describing IQCODE test accuracy, we included 13 papers, representing data from 2745 individuals (n = 1413 (51%) with dementia). Pooled analysis of all studies using data presented closest to a cut-off of 3.3 indicated that sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94); specificity 0.66 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75); the positive likelihood ratio was 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.22). There was a statistically significant difference in test accuracy between the general hospital setting and the specialist memory setting (P = 0.019), suggesting that IQCODE performs better in a 'general' setting. We found no significant differences in the test accuracy of the short (16-item) versus the 26-item IQCODE, or in the language of administration. There was significant heterogeneity in the included studies, including a highly varied prevalence of dementia (10.5% to 87.4%). Across the included papers there was substantial potential for bias, particularly around sampling of included participants and selection criteria, which may limit generalisability. There was also evidence of suboptimal reporting, particularly around disease severity and handling indeterminate results, which are important if considering use in clinical practice. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The IQCODE can be used to identify older adults in the general hospital setting who are at risk of dementia and require specialist assessment; it is useful specifically for ruling out those without evidence of cognitive decline. The language of administration did not affect test accuracy, which supports the cross-cultural use of the tool. These findings are qualified by the significant heterogeneity, the potential for bias and suboptimal reporting found in the included studies.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the detection of dementia within a general practice (primary care) setting.

BACKGROUND: The IQCODE (Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline in the Elderly) is a commonly used questionnaire based tool that uses collateral information to assess for cognitive decline and dementia. Brief tools that can be used for dementia "screening" or "triage" may have particular utility in primary care / general practice healthcare settings but only if they have suitable test accuracy. A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy in a primary care setting should help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice; research and policy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE, for detection of dementia in a primary care setting. SEARCH METHODS: A search was performed in the following sources on the 28th of January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS (Ovid SP), ISI Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), CINHAL (EBSCOhost) and LILACs (BIREME). We also searched sources specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven); DARE (York University); HTA Database (Health Technology Assessments Database via The Cochrane Library) and ARIF (Birmingham University). We developed a sensitive search strategy; search terms were designed to cover key concepts using several different approaches run in parallel and included terms relating to cognitive tests, cognitive screening and dementia. We used standardized database subject headings such as MeSH terms (in MEDLINE) and other standardized headings (controlled vocabulary) in other databases, as appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in primary care settings, which included (not necessarily exclusively) IQCODE to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. For the "primary care" setting, we included those healthcare settings where unselected patients, present for initial, non-specialist assessment of memory or non-memory related symptoms; often with a view to onward referral for more definitive assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. Quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) was determined using the QUADAS-2 tool. Reporting quality was determined using the STARDdem extension to the STARD tool. MAIN RESULTS: From 71 papers describing IQCODE test accuracy, we included 1 paper, representing data from 230 individuals (n=16 [7%] with dementia). The paper described those patients consulting a primary care service who self-identified as Japanese-American. Dementia diagnosis was made using Benson & Cummings criteria and the IQCODE was recorded as part of a longer interview with the informant. IQCODE accuracy was assessed at various test thresholds, with a "trade-off" between sensitivity and specificity across these cutpoints. At an IQCODE threshold of 3.2 sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 76%; for IQCODE 3.7 sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 98%. Applying the QUADAS-2 assessments, the study was at high risk of bias in all categories. In particular degree of blinding was unclear and not all participants were included in the final analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to give definitive guidance on the test accuracy of IQCODE for the diagnosis of dementia in a primary care setting based on the single study identified. We are surprised by the lack of research using the IQCODE in primary care as this is, arguably, the most appropriate setting for targeted case finding of those with undiagnosed dementia in order to maximise opportunities to intervene and provide support for the individual and their carers.

Outcomes after Thrombectomy in Belfast: Mothership and Drip-and-Ship in the Real World.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy has revolutionised the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. It is well recognised that patients are more likely to benefit when reperfusion happens quickly, however, there is uncertainty as to how best to deliver this service. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of patients in Northern -Ireland who underwent thrombectomy via direct admission to the single endovascular centre (mothership [MS]) with those transferred from primary stroke centres (drip-and-ship [DS]). METHODS: Analysis was conducted on the records of all patients who underwent thrombectomy from January 2014 to December 2017 inclusive. The primary outcome measure was 3 months functional independence (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2). Secondary outcome measures were full recovery (mRS 0) at 3 months, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) rates and mortality rates. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients underwent thrombectomy (MS 124, DS 90). Patients in the MS group were older (median 73 vs. 70 years, p = 0.026), but there was no significant difference in baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (median 15 MS vs. 16.5 DS, p = 0.162) or thrombolysis rates (41.9% MS vs. 54.4% DS, p = 0.070) between the groups. Time from stroke onset to arrival at thrombectomy centre was shorter in the MS group (median 71 vs. 218 min, p < 0.001) but door to groin puncture time was shorter in the DS group (median 30 vs. 60 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 3 months functional independence (51.6% MS vs. 62.2% DS, p = 0.123), or in the secondary outcome measures of full recovery (21.8% MS vs. 12.2% DS, p = 0.071), sICH (MS 0.8%, DS 4.4%, p = 0.082) and mortality (MS 24.2%, DS 20.0%, p = 0.468). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed similar outcomes after thrombectomy in the MS and DS groups. For patients potentially eligible for thrombectomy, rapid access to the endovascular centre is essential to optimise both the number of patients treated and the outcomes achieved.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the diagnosis of dementia within a secondary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of dementia relies on the presence of new-onset cognitive impairment affecting an individual's functioning and activities of daily living. The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) is a questionnaire instrument, completed by a suitable 'informant' who knows the patient well, designed to assess change in functional performance secondary to cognitive change; it is used as a tool to identifying those who may have dementia.In secondary care there are two specific instances where patients may be assessed for the presence of dementia. These are in the general acute hospital setting, where opportunistic screening may be undertaken, or in specialist memory services where individuals have been referred due to perceived cognitive problems. To ensure an instrument is suitable for diagnostic use in these settings, its test accuracy must be established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the informant-based questionnaire IQCODE, for detection of all-cause (undifferentiated) dementia in adults presenting to secondary-care services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources on the 28th of January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS Previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection (includes Conference Proceedings Citation Index) (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven); DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects - via the Cochrane Library); HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database via the Cochrane Library) and ARIF (Birmingham University). We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on IQCODE for dementia diagnosis to try to find additional studies. We developed a sensitive search strategy; search terms were designed to cover key concepts using several different approaches run in parallel and included terms relating to cognitive tests, cognitive screening and dementia. We used standardised database subject headings such as MeSH terms (in MEDLINE) and other standardised headings (controlled vocabulary) in other databases, as appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in secondary-care settings, which included (not necessarily exclusively) IQCODE to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. For the 'secondary care' setting we included all studies which assessed patients in hospital (e.g. acute unscheduled admissions, referrals to specialist geriatric assessment services etc.) and those referred for specialist 'memory' assessment, typically in psychogeriatric services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches, and reviewed abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. Two independent assessors checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool, and reporting quality using the STARD tool. MAIN RESULTS: From 72 papers describing IQCODE test accuracy, we included 13 papers, representing data from 2745 individuals (n = 1413 (51%) with dementia). Pooled analysis of all studies using data presented closest to a cut-off of 3.3 indicated that sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94); specificity 0.66 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75); the positive likelihood ratio was 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.22).There was a statistically significant difference in test accuracy between the general hospital setting and the specialist memory setting (P = 0.019), suggesting that IQCODE performs better in a 'general' setting.We found no significant differences in the test accuracy of the short (16-item) versus the 26-item IQCODE, or in the language of administration.There was significant heterogeneity in the included studies, including a highly varied prevalence of dementia (10.5% to 87.4%). Across the included papers there was substantial potential for bias, particularly around sampling of included participants and selection criteria, which may limit generalisability. There was also evidence of suboptimal reporting, particularly around disease severity and handling indeterminate results, which are important if considering use in clinical practice. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The IQCODE can be used to identify older adults in the general hospital setting who are at risk of dementia and require specialist assessment; it is useful specifically for ruling out those without evidence of cognitive decline. The language of administration did not affect test accuracy, which supports the cross-cultural use of the tool. These findings are qualified by the significant heterogeneity, the potential for bias and suboptimal reporting found in the included studies.

Patient engagement with research: European population register study.

BACKGROUND: Lay involvement in implementation of research evidence into practice may include using research findings to guide individual care, as well as involvement in research processes and policy development. Little is known about the conditions required for such involvement. AIM: To assess stroke survivors' research awareness, use of research evidence in their own care and readiness to be involved in research processes. METHODS: Cross sectional survey of stroke survivors participating in population-based stroke registers in six European centres. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (481/647). Reasons for participation in register research included responding to clinician request (56%) and to 'give something back' (19%); however, 20% were unaware that they were participating in a stroke register. Research awareness was generally low: 57% did not know the purpose of the register they had been recruited to; 73% reported not having received results from the register they took part in; 60% did not know about any research on stroke care. Few participants (7.6%) used research evidence during their consultations with a doctor. The 34% of participants who were interested in being involved in research were younger, more highly educated and already research aware. CONCLUSIONS: Across Europe, stroke survivors already participating in research appear ill informed about stroke research. Researchers, healthcare professionals and patient associations need to improve how research results are communicated to patient populations and research participants, and to raise awareness of the relationship between research evidence and increased quality of care.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the diagnosis of dementia within a general practice (primary care) setting.

BACKGROUND: The IQCODE (Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline in the Elderly) is a commonly used questionnaire based tool that uses collateral information to assess for cognitive decline and dementia. Brief tools that can be used for dementia "screening" or "triage" may have particular utility in primary care / general practice healthcare settings but only if they have suitable test accuracy.A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy in a primary care setting should help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice; research and policy. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe the accuracy of IQCODE (the index test) against a clinical diagnosis of dementia (the reference standard). In this review we focus on those studies conducted in a primary care (general practice) setting. SEARCH METHODS: A search was performed in the following sources on the 28th of January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), BIOSIS (Ovid SP), ISI Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), CINHAL (EBSCOhost) and LILACs (BIREME). We also searched sources specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven); DARE (York University); HTA Database (Health Technology Assessments Database via The Cochrane Library) and ARIF (Birmingham University). We developed a sensitive search strategy; search terms were designed to cover key concepts using several different approaches run in parallel and included terms relating to cognitive tests, cognitive screening and dementia. We used standardized database subject headings such as MeSH terms (in MEDLINE) and other standardized headings (controlled vocabulary) in other databases, as appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in primary care settings, which included (not necessarily exclusively) IQCODE to assess for the presence of dementia and where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with clinical assessment. For the "primary care" setting, we included those healthcare settings where unselected patients, present for initial, non-specialist assessment of memory or non-memory related symptoms; often with a view to onward referral for more definitive assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. Quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) was determined using the QUADAS-2 tool. Reporting quality was determined using the STARDdem extension to the STARD tool. MAIN RESULTS: From 71 papers describing IQCODE test accuracy, we included 1 paper, representing data from 230 individuals (n=16 [7%] with dementia). The paper described those patients consulting a primary care service who self-identified as Japanese-American. Dementia diagnosis was made using Benson & Cummings criteria and the IQCODE was recorded as part of a longer interview with the informant.IQCODE accuracy was assessed at various test thresholds, with a "trade-off" between sensitivity and specificity across these cutpoints. At an IQCODE threshold of 3.2 sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 76%; for IQCODE 3.7 sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 98%.Applying the QUADAS-2 assessments, the study was at high risk of bias in all categories. In particular degree of blinding was unclear and not all participants were included in the final analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to give definitive guidance on the test accuracy of IQCODE for the diagnosis of dementia in a primary care setting based on the single study identified. We are surprised by the lack of research using the IQCODE in primary care as this is, arguably, the most appropriate setting for targeted case finding of those with undiagnosed dementia in order to maximise opportunities to intervene and provide support for the individual and their carers.

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the diagnosis of dementia within community dwelling populations.

BACKGROUND: Various tools exist for initial assessment of possible dementia with no consensus on the optimal assessment method. Instruments that use collateral sources to assess change in cognitive function over time may have particular utility. The most commonly used informant dementia assessment is the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE).A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy will help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice, research and policy. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the informant based questionnaire IQCODE, for detection of all cause (undifferentiated) dementia in community-dwelling adults with no previous cognitive assessment. We sought to describe the accuracy of IQCODE (the index test) against a clinical diagnosis of dementia (the reference standard). Our secondary objective was to describe the effect of heterogeneity on the summary estimates. We were particularly interested in the traditional 26-item scale versus the 16-item short form; and language of administration. We explored the effect of varying the threshold IQCODE score used to define 'test positivity'. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources on 28 January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources relevant or specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastrict and Leuven); DARE (York University); ARIF (Birmingham University). We used sensitive search terms based on MeSH terms and other controlled vocabulary. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies performed in community settings that used (not necessarily exclusively) the IQCODE to assess for presence of dementia and, where dementia diagnosis was confirmed, with clinical assessment. Our intention with limiting the search to a 'community' setting was to include those studies closest to population level assessment. Within our predefined community inclusion criteria, there were relevant papers that fulfilled our definition of community dwelling but represented a selected population, for example stroke survivors. We included these studies but performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of these less representative populations on the summary results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. For quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) we used the QUADAS 2 tool. We included test accuracy data on the IQCODE used at predefined diagnostic thresholds. Where data allowed, we performed meta-analyses to calculate summary values of sensitivity and specificity with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pre-specified analyses to describe the effect of IQCODE format (traditional or short form) and language of administration for the IQCODE. MAIN RESULTS: From 16,144 citations, 71 papers described IQCODE test accuracy. We included 10 papers (11 independent datasets) representing data from 2644 individuals (n = 379 (14%) with dementia). Using IQCODE cut-offs commonly employed in clinical practice (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) the sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE for diagnosis of dementia across the studies were generally above 75%.Taking an IQCODE threshold of 3.3 (or closest available) the sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85); specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); positive likelihood ratio was 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 7.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.29).Comparative analysis suggested no significant difference in the test accuracy of the 16 and 26-item IQCODE tests and no significant difference in test accuracy by language of administration. There was little difference in sensitivity across our predefined diagnostic cut-points.There was substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses removing potentially unrepresentative populations in these studies made little difference to the pooled data estimates.The majority of included papers had potential for bias, particularly around participant selection and sampling. The quality of reporting was suboptimal particularly regarding timing of assessments and descriptors of reproducibility and inter-observer variability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Published data suggest that if using the IQCODE for community dwelling older adults, the 16 item IQCODE may be preferable to the traditional scale due to lesser test burden and no obvious difference in accuracy. Although IQCODE test accuracy is in a range that many would consider 'reasonable', in the context of community or population settings the use of the IQCODE alone would result in substantial misdiagnosis and false reassurance. Across the included studies there were issues with heterogeneity, several potential biases and suboptimal reporting quality.

Stroke unit care benefits patients with intracerebral hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with any type of stroke managed in organized inpatient (stroke unit) care are more likely to survive, return home, and regain independence. However, it is uncertain whether these benefits apply equally to patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a systematic review of controlled clinical trials comparing stroke unit care with general ward care, including only trials published after 1990 that could separately report outcomes for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and ischemic stroke. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and tested for subgroup interactions by stroke type. RESULTS: We identified 13 trials (3570 patients) of modern stroke unit care that recruited patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and ischemic stroke, of which 8 trials provided data on 2657 patients. Stroke unit care reduced death or dependency (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.471-0.92; P=0.0009; I2=60%) with no difference in benefits for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00) than patients with ischemic stroke (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97; Pinteraction=0.77). Stroke unit care reduced death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; P=0.02; I2=49%) to a greater extent for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97) than patients with ischemic stroke (RR, 0.82; 95%, CI 0.61-1.09), but this difference was not statistically significant (Pinteraction=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage seem to benefit at least as much as patients with ischemic stroke from organized inpatient (stroke unit) care.

Stop the clots, but at what cost? Pharmacoeconomics of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke in subjects with atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review.

Dabigatran etexilate is a newly approved agent for prophylaxis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. Through narrative review, the authors assess evidence of the efficacy of dabigatran in stroke prevention, focusing on the multicenter, randomized trial RE-LY. The authors complement this with a review of the clinical efficacy of standard treatments (antiplatelet and warfarin). Finally, the authors present a systematic review of published studies describing the economics of dabigatran. Our systematic search gave six economic reviews from a variety of healthcare systems (the USA, Canada and the UK) and utilizing different economic models. Analyses suggest economic benefit of high- or sequential-dose dabigatran, particularly when stroke risk is high; intracerebral hemorrhage risk is high or warfarin control is poor. However, questions remain around dabigatran tolerability, compliance and possible unexpected adverse events.

Services for reducing duration of hospital care for acute stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Stroke patients conventionally receive a substantial part of their rehabilitation in hospital. Services have now been developed which offer patients in hospital an early discharge with rehabilitation at home (early supported discharge (ESD)). OBJECTIVES: To establish the effects and costs of ESD services compared with conventional services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group (January 2012) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group, MEDLINE (2008 to 7 February 2012), EMBASE (2008 to 7 February 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2012). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched 17 trial registers (February 2012), performed citation tracking of included studies, checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted trialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials recruiting stroke patients in hospital to receive either conventional care or any service intervention which has provided rehabilitation and support in a community setting with an aim of reducing the duration of hospital care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary patient outcome was the composite end-point of death or long-term dependency recorded at the end of scheduled follow-up. Two review authors scrutinised trials and categorised them on their eligibility. We then sought standardised individual patient data from the primary trialists. We analysed the results for all trials and for subgroups of patients and services, in particular whether the intervention was provided by a co-ordinated multidisciplinary team (co-ordinated ESD team) or not. MAIN RESULTS: Outcome data are currently available for 14 trials (1957 patients). Patients tended to be a selected elderly group with moderate disability. The ESD group showed significant reductions (P < 0.0001) in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately seven days. Overall, the odds ratios (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) for death, death or institutionalisation, death or dependency at the end of scheduled follow-up were OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, P = 0.58), OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.00, P = 0.05) and OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.97, P = 0.02) respectively. The greatest benefits were seen in the trials evaluating a co-ordinated ESD team and in stroke patients with mild to moderate disability. Improvements were also seen in patients' extended activities of daily living scores (standardised mean difference 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25, P = 0.05) and satisfaction with services (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, P = 0.02) but no statistically significant differences were seen in carers' subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services. The apparent benefits were no longer statistically significant at five-year follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately resourced ESD services provided for a selected group of stroke patients can reduce long-term dependency and admission to institutional care as well as reducing the length of hospital stay. We observed no adverse impact on the mood or subjective health status of patients or carers.

Cognitive and mood assessment in stroke research: focused review of contemporary studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: International guidelines recommend cognitive and mood assessments for stroke survivors; these assessments also have use in clinical trials. However, there is no consensus on the optimal assessment tool(s). We aimed to describe use of cognitive and mood measures in contemporary published stroke trials. METHODS: Two independent, blinded assessors reviewed high-impact journals representing: general medicine (n=4), gerontology/rehabilitation (n=3), neurology (n=4), psychiatry (n=4), psychology (n=4), and stroke (n=3) January 2000 to October 2011 inclusive. Journals were hand-searched for relevant, original research articles that described cognitive/mood assessments in human stroke survivors. Data were checked for relevance by an independent clinician and clinical psychologist. RESULTS: Across 8826 stroke studies, 488 (6%) included a cognitive or mood measure. Of these 488 articles, total number with cognitive assessment was 408 (83%) and mood assessment tools 247 (51%). Total number of different assessments used was 367 (cognitive, 300; mood, 67). The most commonly used cognitive measure was Folstein's Mini-Mental State Examination (n=180 articles, 37% of all articles with cognitive/mood outcomes); the most commonly used mood assessment was the Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression(n=43 [9%]). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive and mood assessments are infrequently used in stroke research. When used, there is substantial heterogeneity and certain prevalent assessment tools may not be suited to stroke cohorts. Research and guidance on the optimal cognitive/mood assessment strategies for clinical practice and trials is required.