Evidence Table 2a. Effectiveness of Screening Tools: Systematic Review

ReferenceOutcome of interestSearch StrategyInclusion/Exclusion CriteriaQuality AppraisalFindings
Costa et al., 199675 Meta-analysis of empirical studies of assessment of mental status instruments for differentiating between persons with and without dementiaNo search terms given Included:Five-phase evaluation scale:Instrument with >1 Phase IV studies-
Human studies, Adult/elderly subjects, EnglishI-Narrow spectrum of diseaseMean Effect Score (studies evaluated)
Assessment of memory complaints, Screening studies, Editorials or commentaries, Meta-analysesII-Narrow-typical cases vs. healthy controls[z-value compared to MMSE]
Evaluations of instrument effectiveness or discriminabilityIII-Expanded spectrum of cases vs. healthy controlsMMSE-1.78 (12)
Excluded:IV-Inclusion of appropriate comorbidity for cases and controlsBIMC-2.49 (2)
Animal studies, children, non-English, etiology or pathology, biological markers, individual case studies, biochemistry, drug models, clinical trials, drug therapy, dexamethasone suppression, toxic encephalopathy, AIDS, syphilis, neurosyphilis, multiple sclerosis, lumbar punctures, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, treatment, management, detection by neuroimaging, pathophysiology, physiological changes, and normal aging changesV-Full spectrum of diseased and non-diseased individuals[z=1.36, NS]
BOMC-1.63 (2)
[z=0.60, NS]
STMS-2.01 (2)
[z=0.39, NS]
FAQ-2.46 (2)
[z=2.81, P <0.05]
Conclusions/ Recommendations
-MMSE, BIMC, BOMC, and STMS largely equivalent
-FAQ is particularly useful for initial assessment of functional impairment

From: Appendix B. Evidence Tables

Cover of Screening for Dementia
Screening for Dementia [Internet].
Systematic Evidence Reviews, No. 20.
Boustani M, Peterson B, Harris R, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.