3.9 Article

Analyzing the chance of developing dementia among geriatric people: a cross-sectional pilot study in Bangladesh

期刊

PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 87-94

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/psyg.12368

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; clinical dementia rating; dementia; geriatric people; mild cognitive impairment; Takeda Three Colors Combination Test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia, representing 60-80% of cases, and ageing is the primary risk factor for the development of Alzheimer's disease. The objective of this study was to examine the chance of developing dementia (i.e. mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease) among geriatric people in Bangladesh. Methods This study included 390 adult citizens of Bangladesh (age range: 60-70 years). The Takeda Three Colors Combination (TTCC) test was used to detect the prevalence of MCI and mild dementia among the subjects, and then the Clinical Dementia Rating was used to determine the level of dementia. Results The subjects who were aged 60-65 years included 154 with MCI, 76 with mild dementia, 1 with moderate dementia, 4 with severe dementia, and 29 without dementia. The subjects who were aged 66-70 years included 75 with MCI, 36 with mild dementia, 0 with moderate dementia, 2 with severe dementia, and 13 without dementia. The sensitivity of the TTCC was 75% and 58% for the mild dementia and MCI groups, respectively, and the specificity was 52%. The odds ratio of incorrect responses to the TTCC was 3.42 (95% confidence interval: 1.63-7.21) for subjects with mild dementia compared those without dementia. However, the TTCC outcomes revealed no significant differences between the MCI and non-dementia groups. The results showed no significant associations between cognitive decline/developing dementia and social status/occupation. Conclusion The outcomes of this study indicated that most of the subjects had MCI or mild dementia and were farmers aged 60-65 years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据