Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12888-017-1401-4
复制
发表时间：
2017-07-03
期刊：
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Starr, John M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sibbett, Ruth A.;Russ, Tom C.;Starr, John M.
背景：研究痴呆的风险因素或病因必须考虑疾病发作前的对象。为克服前瞻性研究和自我报告信息回忆的局限性，利用现有数据是关键。本综述对使用现有数据来源的痴呆确定方法进行了叙述性说明。
方法：使用以下数据库进行文献检索：医学文献数据库（MEDLINE）、荷兰医学文摘数据库（EMBASE）、心理学信息数据库（PsychInfo）和科学引文索引（Web of Science）。纳入的文章报道了一项基于英国的痴呆研究，其中病例是利用现有数据确定的。现有数据包括常规收集的数据以及为先前研究收集的数据。去除重复项后，对摘要进行筛选，剩余的文章纳入全文评审。使用一种质量工具来评估确定方法的描述。
结果：在筛选的3545篇摘要中，有360篇文章被选入全文评审。47篇文章最终被纳入考虑。确定的数据源包括：死亡记录、国家数据集、研究数据库和医院记录等。36篇文章仅使用现有数据进行确定，其中27篇仅使用单一数据源。最常用的数据源是研究数据库。质量得分在7/16到16/16之间。以痴呆确定为结果的文章质量得分更高。一些论文对痴呆确定进行了验证研究，大多数表明观察到的痴呆发病率低于预期。
结论：我们发现使用现有数据确定痴呆的方法缺乏一致性。由于没有确定某个数据源为“金标准”，我们建议使用多个数据源。在可能的情况下，研究应获取有确诊证据的记录。研究还应为所研究的人群计算痴呆确定率，以便与预期率进行比较。
Background: Studies investigating the risk factors for or causation of dementia must consider subjects prior to disease onset. To overcome the limitations of prospective studies and self-reported recall of information, the use of existing data is key. This review provides a narrative account of dementia ascertainment methods using sources of existing data.Methods: The literature search was performed using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Web of Science. Included articles reported a UK-based study of dementia in which cases were ascertained using existing data. Existing data included that which was routinely collected and that which was collected for previous research. After removing duplicates, abstracts were screened and the remaining articles were included for full-text review. A quality tool was used to evaluate the description of the ascertainment methodology.Results: Of the 3545 abstracts screened, 360 articles were selected for full-text review. 47 articles were included for final consideration. Data sources for ascertainment included: death records, national datasets, research databases and hospital records among others. 36 articles used existing data alone for ascertainment, of which 27 used only a single data source. The most frequently used source was a research database. Quality scores ranged from 7/16 to 16/16. Quality scores were better for articles with dementia ascertainment as an outcome. Some papers performed validation studies of dementia ascertainment and most indicated that observed rates of dementia were lower than expected.Conclusions: We identified a lack of consistency in dementia ascertainment methodology using existing data. With no data source identified as a "gold-standard", we suggest the use of multiple sources. Where possible, studies should access records with evidence to confirm the diagnosis. Studies should also calculate the dementia ascertainment rate for the population being studied to enable a comparison with an expected rate.