Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

The value of the GP’s clinical judgement in predicting dementia: a multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in general practice

Michael Pentzek, Michael Wagner, Heinz-Harald Abholz, Horst Bickel, Hanna Kaduszkiewicz, Birgitt Wiese, Siegfried Weyerer, Hans-Helmut König, Martin Scherer, Steffi G Riedel-Heller, Wolfgang Maier, Alexander Koppara and for the AgeCoDe Study Group
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): e786-e793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X706037
Michael Pentzek
Institute of General Practice (ifam), Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf.
Roles: Senior researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Wagner
Department of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Geriatric Psychiatry, University of Bonn, Bonn.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heinz-Harald Abholz
Institute of General Practice (ifam), Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Horst Bickel
Department of Psychiatry, Technical University of Munich, Munich.
Roles: Senior researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hanna Kaduszkiewicz
Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty, Kiel University, Kiel.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Birgitt Wiese
Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover.
Roles: Biostatistician
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siegfried Weyerer
Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty, Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Mannheim.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans-Helmut König
Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics;
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Scherer
Department of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steffi G Riedel-Heller
Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang Maier
Department of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Geriatric Psychiatry, University of Bonn, Bonn; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn.
Roles: Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Koppara
Department of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Geriatric Psychiatry, University of Bonn, Bonn; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn.
Roles: Research associate
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Clinical judgement is intrinsic to diagnostic strategies in general practice; however, empirical evidence for its validity is sparse.

Aim To ascertain whether a GP’s global clinical judgement of future cognitive status has an added value for predicting a patient’s likelihood of experiencing dementia.

Design and setting Multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in German general practice that took place from January 2003 to October 2016.

Method Patients without baseline dementia were assessed with neuropsychological interviews over 12 years; 138 GPs rated the future cognitive decline of their participating patients. Associations of baseline predictors with follow-up incident dementia were analysed with mixed-effects logistic and Cox regression.

Results A total of 3201 patients were analysed over the study period (mean age = 79.6 years, 65.3% females, 6.7% incident dementia in 3 years, 22.1% incident dementia in 12 years). Descriptive analyses and comparison with other cohorts identified the participants as having frequent and long-lasting doctor–patient relationships and being well known to their GPs. The GP baseline rating of future cognitive decline had significant value for 3-year dementia prediction, independent of cognitive test scores and patient’s memory complaints (GP ratings of very mild (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] = 1.28 to 3.04); mild (OR 3.00, 95% CI = 1.90 to 4.76); and moderate/severe decline (OR 5.66, 95% CI = 3.29 to 9.73)). GPs’ baseline judgements were significantly associated with patients’ 12-year dementia-free survival rates (Mantel–Cox log rank test P<0.001).

Conclusion In this sample of patients in familiar doctor–patient relationships, the GP’s clinical judgement holds additional value for predicting dementia, complementing test performance and patients’ self-reports. Existing and emerging primary care-based dementia risk models should consider the GP’s judgement as one predictor. Results underline the importance of the GP-patient relationship.

  • clinical decision making
  • cognitive decline
  • dementia
  • general practice
  • intuition
  • validity

INTRODUCTION

Health policy and research have provided increased awareness about identifying individuals at risk of dementia in primary care.1 This is justified by strategies for risk reduction,2 and the opportunity for patient-centred management3 in case of cognitive deterioration, for example, home visits, adjusted communication, family involvement, checking medication, and alertness for risks such as social isolation. For older people with memory concerns, the GP is a significant contact.4 A patient’s predicted cognitive status can add to the GP’s holistic view of the patient and provide relevant information for ongoing patient management. Parameters discussed for identifying dementia risk include biomarkers,5 neuropsychological constructs such as mild cognitive impairment,6 short tests like the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE),7 and patient self-reports of subjective cognitive decline (SCD).8 Several dementia risk scores for use in general practice have been published recently,9–12 but none of these considers the GP’s judgement as an important source of prognostic power, therefore neglecting the expertise and relevance of GPs as experts on their patients. Ford et al suggested that easily available predictive information from primary care should also be explored in future studies because it ‘… might increase the predictive validity of a model’.13

Particularly in the absence of general screening activity,14 clinical judgement is an essential part of early diagnostic strategies used in primary care, arising from a hermeneutic approach to individual symptoms, changes, complaints, and patterns.15 Continuous and familiar doctor–patient relationships in primary care foster the integration of longitudinal clinical, biographical, and psychosocial information for clinical judgement.16 As Thornton emphasised, ‘… at the heart of evidence based medicine is good judgement’.17 In other medical settings, expert judgement (alone or combined with objective measures) has shown several advantages and good validity, for example, in the emergency department18 and in medical education.19 With regard to early dementia recognition and prediction, the GP’s judgement and the patient’s subjective cognitive decline are the most important parameters in the initial diagnostic trigger stage, whereas cognitive tests and laboratory parameters become relevant in the subsequent disease-oriented diagnostic stage.20 According to the stimulating and substantiating factors of intuitive clinical judgement,21 dementia prediction is a prime example of intuition as an appropriate initial diagnostic strategy in primary care.

Several dementia risk scores have been constructed recently that do not include the GP’s expertise. This study found that a GP’s global clinical judgement of future cognitive status has an independent value for predicting a patient’s dementia, yielding additional information beyond test scores and patient reports. This finding supports the potential of intuitive and heuristic clinical judgement as a diagnostic strategy.

How this fits in

The aim of this study was to address the research question: does the GP’s clinical judgement contribute additional information for the prediction of dementia within 3 years and time of dementia onset over 12 years, beyond the patient’s self-report and test performance?

METHOD

The German Study on Ageing, Cognition, and Dementia (AgeCoDe) is a multicentre prospective cohort study of German patients in primary care.22 Demographic, clinical, and neuropsychological data were collected from patients during home visits by interviewers at intervals of 18 months (at baseline and in eight follow-up assessments I to VIII). Interviewers were researchers, trained and supervised in the use of the assessment procedures. Independent from these patient interviews, GPs gave information about their participating patients. The analyses presented in this article consist of data from baseline and two follow-ups (with regard to dementia prediction over 3 years) and eight follow-ups (with regard to prediction of time to dementia onset over 12 years), respectively.

GPs were recruited by local researchers at six metropolitan study centres. Patients were recruited from the 138 participating GP practices between 1 January 2003 and 30 November 2004. Inclusion criteria for patients were age ≥75 years, absence of dementia in the GP’s view, and at least one contact with the GP within the previous 12 months. Exclusion criteria were consultations only by home visits, residence in a nursing home, severe illness the GP would deem fatal within 3 months, insufficient German language skills, deafness, blindness, lacking the ability to consent, and not being a regular patient of the participating GP practice. Researchers and GPs together compiled the lists of eligible patients from all practice patients; researchers then randomly chose up to 60 eligible patients per practice using random number tables.

Outcome variable: incident dementia

Interviewers conducted a SIDAM interview (structured interview for the diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type, multi-infarct dementia, and dementias of other aetiology),23 including a neuropsychological test battery (the SIDAM-Score or SISCO), at baseline and all follow-ups. DSM-IV dementia criteria24 were included in a diagnostic algorithm in the SIDAM by assessing cognitive performance and activities of daily living, including an informant interview in cases with suspected dementia. Dementia status in patients without personal interview at follow-up (for example, because of refusal or death) was based on additional informant interviews with relatives, professional carers, and GPs, using the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS)25 and Blessed Dementia Scale.26 All diagnoses were discussed in consensus conferences with the interviewers and experienced geriatric psychiatrists or geriatricians. Dementia diagnoses could be verified by follow-up results.

Predictor variables

Education

The level of education received by the patients was assessed in at-home interviews and categorised as low (elementary education), intermediate (intermediate vocational/general qualification), or high (tertiary education) using an international educational classification.27

GPs’ clinical judgement

At baseline and without information about the results of the research interviews, GPs rated their patients’ future cognitive status using the seven-point ordinal GDS (1 = no subjective or objective impairment to 7 = severe dementia)25 and answering the question ‘Which GDS stage do you expect the patient will have in 3 years?’ This GP rating was analysed as a global clinical judgement of future cognitive status.

The MMSE (score 0–30)7 was used as a short test of the patient’s global cognition. A patient’s SCD8 was assessed with the questions: ‘Do you feel like your memory is becoming worse?’ (yes/no); in case of response ‘yes’: ‘Does this worry you?’ (yes/no).28

Characteristics of patients, doctor–patient relationship, and GPs’ decision making

Beside the SISCO, subtests of the CERAD-NP (neuropsychological assessment of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease)29 were used to measure memory performance. All drugs a patient was currently taking were documented in the interviews. GPs gave information about patients’ comorbidities and were asked to describe their doctor–patient relationship in terms of familiarity with the patient (from 1 = very poor to 4 = very high) and years of doctor–patient contact.

To evaluate the relevance of cognitive tests in GPs’ diagnostic repertoire, all GPs in the follow-up phases III–VI reported on whether they conducted or requested any cognitive testing for each patient.

Statistical analysis

Predictor variables were checked for multicollinearity in terms of bivariate correlations and all coefficients were found to be negligible and well below 0.50 (see Supplementary Table 1 for details).

To evaluate the independent effects of predictors on the development of incident dementia within 3 years, multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was applied, considering the cluster effect of GP practices. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Multivariable mixed-effects Cox regression (again including the cluster effect of GP practices) was used to analyse the independent effects of predictors on time of dementia onset over 12 years. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% CI.

For all models, the Bayesian information criterion was chosen as a robust and conservative indicator of model fit, with lower values indicating better fit.

Differences in dementia-free survival times between participants with different GP-predicted GDS stages were illustrated by Kaplan–Meier survival curves and tested for significance using the log rank test.

Analyses were performed with SPSS (version 24) and SAS (version 9.3).

RESULTS

At baseline, 138 GPs (19–29 per study centre) recruited a total of 3327 participants (mean number = 24.1, SD = 11.7). Most of the recruiting GPs were male (74.5%), their mean age was 50.9 years (SD = 6.5), and the mean of their years in practice was 14.9 (SD = 6.7). Figure 1 gives details of the patient recruitment process. Consenting patients (n = 3327) were slightly younger (mean = 80.1 years [SD = 3.8] versus 80.7 years [SD = 3.8]) and more often male (34.5% versus 31.1%) than refusing or non-responding patients (n = 3292). The analysed sample for all regression models consists of n = 3201 participants with complete baseline information (face-to-face patient interview and GP questionnaire) and at least one valid item of follow-up information on dementia status (based on face-to-face or informant interviews), from 135 GPs (for three GPs no patient was eligible for the analysis).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Patient recruitment flow chart.

MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination.

The proportion of participants with personal versus informant follow-up interview is more than 80% versus <20% for each follow-up assessment, and personally interviewed patients slightly differ from non-interviewed patients (see Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 for details). The main reasons for missing personal follow-up interviews were death and refusal.

Characteristics of patients and doctor–patient relationships

Table 1 gives baseline characteristics for the participants. A high generalisability is supported by the low prevalence setting with realistic incidence rates of dementia. However, compared with other, younger cohorts,30 CERAD memory performance on verbal fluency and immediate word list recall in the AgeCoDe baseline sample was considerably better. GPs report excellent patient knowledge, and the mean consultation rate is higher than in representative German cohorts.31 The number of drugs taken and the proportion of patients taking five or more drugs is comparable, but slightly smaller than in an unselected German primary care sample of community-dwelling older adults.32 Except for the high rate of coronary heart disease, prevalence rates for chronic conditions in the AgeCoDe cohort very closely correspond to the rates described in representative German cohorts.33,34

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of the patients in the study (n = 3201, all without dementia at baseline according to both reference standard and GP judgement)

Prediction of incident dementia within 3 years

In all models, the GP’s judgement yielded additional and significant information for the 3-year prediction of dementia, independent of the patient’s sex, age, education, SCD, and MMSE scores (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Independent effects of baseline predictors for the 3-year prediction of dementia (multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression, n = 3201)

The regression model with GP/SCD/MMSE shows a better model fit than all other models based on the Bayesian information criterion (lowest BIC).

Prediction of time of dementia onset over 12 years

In all models, the GP’s judgement added specific information for the prediction of time to dementia onset in a 12-year period, independent of the patient’s sex, age, education, SCD, and MMSE scores (Table 3). The regression model with GP/SCD/MMSE outperformed all other models in terms of model fit based on the Bayesian information criterion (lowest BIC).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Independent effects of baseline predictors for the prediction of time of dementia onset over 12 years (multivariable mixed-effects Cox regression, n = 3201)

Multivariable mixed-effects Cox regression found that dementia-free survival significantly varied as a function of the GP’s rating of a patient’s future cognitive status (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curves of dementia-free survival in patients with different GP ratings on future cognitive status (GDS stage). GDS = Global Deterioration Scale.

DISCUSSION

Summary

In the study sample of patients with a close doctor–patient relationship, the GP’s clinical judgement holds an added value for the prediction of dementia, apparently by providing information beyond cognitive test performance and patient’s self-report. This applies to both short-term prediction of incident dementia within 3 years and long-term prediction of dementia onset over 12 years. The results underline the importance of the GP–patient relationship.

Strengths and limitations

The presented analyses and conclusions are restricted to the applied parameters; there are many alternative measures of SCD, test performance, and clinical dementia rating.

The strong effect of the MMSE may be partly explained by a bias in terms of methodological proximity of predictor MMSE and gold standard. The MMSE, as the only one of the examined parameters, is an explicit part of the diagnostic SIDAM algorithm for the gold standard of clinical dementia diagnosis.

Compared with other cohorts, participants show better cognitive and verbal abilities (CERAD) and a closer doctor–patient relationship in terms of GP familiarity, duration of doctor–patient contact, and number of consultations. These biases may be the result of the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as GPs’ involvement in the initial patient recruitment process. The effect of the GP’s judgement may have benefited from this biased selection of participants with a more involved kind of doctor–patient contact. In other aspects, such as somatic comorbidities, drug intake, and dementia incidence, the analysed sample seems not to be biased.

The independent association of the GP’s judgement was analysed and model fit indices of several prediction models were compared. These analyses can be interpreted as an indication of content validity, that is, the fundamental insight that a GP’s judgement on patient cognition is independently associated with dementia risk. For analyses of predictive validity, studies following STARDdem criteria35 are needed, incorporating the GP’s judgement and other predictors for generating practically relevant parameters such as positive and negative predictive values.

The main strength of the presented study is its prospective design. Especially in cross-sectional diagnostic studies on cognitive impairment, the risk of incorporation bias is high.35 A prospective design implies decoupling the reference standard from the index tests, thus reducing the risk of incorporation bias as well as diagnostic review bias. With regard to epidemiological studies, an elaborate diagnostic reference standard was used, mainly (the interview) being applied to most participants and thus minimising verification bias. The validity of the reference standard was further facilitated by re-evaluating a dementia diagnosis in follow-up visits (in cases with personal interviews), thereby reducing the risk of misclassification. However, dementia status in non-participants was derived from informant interviews, also including information from the GP. Apart from the validity aspects of informant reports, this could have introduced a bias to the benefit of the GP’s judgement.

Another advantage of the study is a valid GP judgement in terms of explicit questions about cognitive status; the study did not rely on GPs’ documentation of cognitive status in medical records.

Comparison with existing literature

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first analysis of the validity of GPs’ clinical judgement regarding a patient’s likelihood of future dementia. Two previous studies report relevant validity of an expert clinical rating for future dementia,36,37 but ratings were based on singular lengthy interviews (90–120 minutes) by ‘dementia experts’ and not GPs. Primary care decision making with its specific diagnostic concepts, strategies, and holistic perspective has been described in theory as carrying diagnostic and prognostic potential.15,16 However, empirical evidence is sparse. The results of the current study underline the value of clinical judgement as a central parameter in the trigger stage: asking and testing patients is in contrast to what GPs normally do in the initial diagnostic phase.38 As a first step, they usually evaluate complex constructs, such as the risk of dementia, in a more intuitive way, based on a close, trusting, and continuous doctor–patient relationship.

Throughout the literature, there exists a strong belief in the superiority of questionnaires and performance-based tests over global, intuitive clinical judgement. As generalist concepts may be distinct from specialist classifications (reported not only for dementia,39 but also for depression40 and headache),41 there is some questionable justification for assuming superiority of one over the other. Innovative study designs42 and elaborate methods are needed to compare different approaches in a valid manner, to reveal the diagnostic yield of GPs’ clinical judgement, and to disentangle the cognitive mechanisms behind it.

Implications for research

The presented analyses provide a first indication for the value of the GP’s judgement and may stimulate rigorous studies on GPs’ dementia recognition and prediction. From the results of this study and the subsequent discussion, it seems justified to consider the GP’s judgement in prediction models as one parameter for the identification of individuals at risk of dementia, at least in familiar doctor–patient relationships.

As one of the central parameters in the diagnostic trigger stage, the GP’s judgement should be further investigated beyond dementia. Addressing attitudinal and cognitive biases of the GP’s judgement43 may help to improve its validity.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants and GPs for their collaboration.

Notes

Funding

This study is part of the German Research Network on Dementia (KND), the German Research Network on Degenerative Dementia (KNDD), and the Health Service Research Initiative, and was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant numbers: grants KND: 01GI0102, 01GI0420, 01GI0422, 01GI0423, 01GI0429, 01GI0431, 01GI0433, 01GI0434; grants KNDD: 01GI0710, 01GI0711, 01GI0712, 01GI0713, 01GI0714, 01GI0715, 01GI0716; grants Health Service Research Initiative: 01GY1322A, 01GY1322B, 01GY1322C, 01GY1322D, 01GY1322E, 01GY1322F, 01GY1322G). The funder had no influence on study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or the writing of the article and the decision to submit it for publication. Researchers are independent from funders.

Ethical approval

Approval was obtained from each study centre: Ethics Commission of the Medical Association Hamburg (OB/08 /022817/2007); Ethics Commission of the University of Bonn (050/02 258/07); Medical Ethics Commission II, University of Heidelberg at the University Medical Center of Mannheim (0226.4/2002 2007-253E-MA); Ethics Commission at the Medical Center of the University of Leipzig (143/2002 309/2007); Ethics Commission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (2079/2002 2999/2008); and Ethics Committee of the TUM School of Medicine, Munich (713/02 713/02 E).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Contributors

Further co-authors involved in the study were Jürgen in der Schmitten, Dagmar Weeg, Silke Mamone, Tobias Luck, Jochen Werle, Dagmar Lühmann, Christian Brettschneider, and Luca Kleineidam. Members of the AgeCoDe Study Group: Wolfgang Maier and Martin Scherer (principal investigators), Hendrik van den Bussche (principal investigator 2002–2011), Heinz-Harald Abholz, Christian Brettschneider, Cadja Bachmann, Horst Bickel, Wolfgang Blank, Hendrik van den Bussche, Sandra Eifflaender-Gorfer, Marion Eisele, Annette Ernst, Angela Fuchs, Kathrin Heser, Frank Jessen, Hanna Kaduszkiewicz, Teresa Kaufeler, Mirjam Köhler, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Koppara, Carolin Lange, Diana Lubisch, Tobias Luck, Dagmar Lühmann, Melanie Luppa, Manfred Mayer, Edelgard Mösch, Michael Pentzek, Tina Posselt, Jana Prokein, Steffi Riedel-Heller, Susanne Röhr, Anna Schumacher, Janine Stein, Susanne Steinmann, Franziska Tebarth, Michael Wagner, Klaus Weckbecker, Dagmar Weeg, Jochen Werle, Siegfried Weyerer, Birgitt Wiese, Steffen Wolfsgruber, and Thomas Zimmermann.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received February 2, 2019.
  • Revision requested March 11, 2019.
  • Accepted May 8, 2019.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Naylor MD,
    2. Karlawish JH,
    3. Arnold SE,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Advancing Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, treatment, and care: recommendations from the Ware Invitational Summit. Alzheimers Dement 8(5):445–452.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Rosenberg A,
    2. Ngandu T,
    3. Rusanen M,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Multidomain lifestyle intervention benefits a large elderly population at risk for cognitive decline and dementia regardless of baseline characteristics: the FINGER trial. Alzheimers Dement 14(3):263–270.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mead N,
    2. Bower P
    (2002) Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 48(1):51–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Livingston G,
    2. Baio G,
    3. Sommerlad A,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Effectiveness of an intervention to facilitate prompt referral to memory clinics in the United Kingdom: cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 14(3):e1002252.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Weinstein G,
    2. Seshadri S
    (2014) Circulating biomarkers that predict incident dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther 6(1):6.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Petersen RC,
    2. Lopez O,
    3. Armstrong MJ,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Practice guideline update summary: mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 90(3):126–135.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Folstein MF,
    2. Folstein SE,
    3. McHugh PR
    (1975) ‘Mini-mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12(3):189–198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Jessen F,
    2. Amariglio RE,
    3. van Boxtel M,
    4. et al.
    (2014) A conceptual framework for research on subjective cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 10(6):844–852.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Licher S,
    2. Leening MJG,
    3. Yilmaz P,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Development and validation of a dementia risk prediction model in the general population: an analysis of three longitudinal studies. Am J Psychiatry 176(6):543–551.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    1. Walters K,
    2. Hardoon S,
    3. Petersen I,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Predicting dementia risk in primary care: development and validation of the Dementia Risk Score using routinely collected data. BMC Med 14:6.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.
    1. Barnes DE,
    2. Beiser AS,
    3. Lee A,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Development and validation of a brief dementia screening indicator for primary care. Alzheimers Dement 10(6):656–665.e1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Ogrodnik M,
    3. Devine S,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Practical risk score for 5-, 10-, and 20-year prediction of dementia in elderly persons: Framingham Heart Study. Alzheimers Dement 14(1):35–42.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ford E,
    2. Greenslade N,
    3. Paudyal P,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Predicting dementia from primary care records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 13(3):e0194735.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Moyer VA
    (2014) Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(11):791–797.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Heneghan C,
    2. Glasziou P,
    3. Thompson M,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Diagnostic strategies used in primary care. BMJ 338:b946.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Gulbrandsen P,
    2. Fugelli P,
    3. Hjortdahl P
    (1998) General practitioners’ knowledge of their patients’ socioeconomic data and their ability to identify vulnerable groups. Scand J Prim Health Care 16(4):204–210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Thornton T
    (2006) Tacit knowledge as the unifying factor in evidence based medicine and clinical judgement. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 1(1):E2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Body R,
    2. Cook G,
    3. Burrows G,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Can emergency physicians ‘rule in’ and ‘rule out’ acute myocardial infarction with clinical judgement? Emerg Med J 31(11):872–876.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ilgen JS,
    2. Ma IW,
    3. Hatala R,
    4. Cook DA
    (2015) A systematic review of validity evidence for checklists versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Med Educ 49(2):161–173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pentzek M,
    2. Vollmar HC,
    3. Wilm S,
    4. Leve V
    (2017) Putting dementia awareness into general practice: the CADIF approach. Z Gerontol Geriatr 50(suppl 2):44–47.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Dowie J,
    2. Elstein AS
    1. Hamm RM
    (1988) in Professional judgment: a reader in clinical decision making, Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum, eds Dowie J, Elstein AS (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY), pp 78–105.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Koppara A,
    2. Wagner M,
    3. Lange C,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Cognitive performance before and after the onset of subjective cognitive decline in old age. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 1(2):194–205.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Zaudig M,
    2. Hiller W
    (1996) Strukturiertes Interview für die Diagnose einer Demenz vom Alzheimer Typ, der Multi-Infarkt-(oder vaskulären) Demenz und Demenzen anderer Ätiologie nach DSM-III-R, DSM-IV und ICD-10. [SIDAM handbook: a structured interview for the diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type, multi-infarct dementia and dementias of other aetiology according to DSM-III-R, DSM-IV and ICD-10], SIDAM-Handbuch. (Hans Huber, Bern).
  24. 24.↵
    1. American Psychiatric Association
    (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (APA, Washington, DC), 4th edn.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Reisberg B,
    2. Ferris SH,
    3. de Leon MJ,
    4. Crook T
    (1982) The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry 139(9):1136–1139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Blessed G,
    2. Tomlinson BE,
    3. Roth M
    (1968) The association between quantitative measures of dementia and of senile change in the cerebral grey matter of elderly subjects. Br J Psychiatry 114(512):797–811.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Brauns H,
    2. Steinmann S
    (1999) Educational reform in France, West Germany and the United Kingdom: updating the CASMIN educational classification. ZUMA Nachrichten 23(44):7–44.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Geerlings MI,
    2. Jonker C,
    3. Bouter LM,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Association between memory complaints and incident Alzheimer’s disease in elderly people with normal baseline cognition. Am J Psychiatry 156(4):531–537.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Morris JC,
    2. Heyman A,
    3. Mohs RC,
    4. et al.
    (1989) The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 39(9):1159–1165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Fillenbaum GG,
    2. Heyman A,
    3. Huber MS,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Performance of elderly African American and White community residents on the CERAD Neuropsychological Battery. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 7(4):502–509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Grobe TG,
    2. Steinmann S,
    3. Szecseny J,
    4. Barmer GEK
    (2016) [Physician report 2016], Arztreport 2016 (Asgard-Verlagsservice GmbH, Siegburg).
  32. 32.↵
    1. Junius-Walker U,
    2. Theile G,
    3. Hummers-Pradier E
    (2007) Prevalence and predictors of polypharmacy among older primary care patients in Germany. Fam Pract 24(1):14–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gößwald A,
    2. Schienkiewitz A,
    3. Nowossadeck E,
    4. Busch MA
    (2013) [Prevalence of myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease in adults aged 40–79 years in Germany: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1)]. [Article in German]. Bundesgesundheitsbl 56(5–6):650–655.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Heidemann C,
    2. Du Y,
    3. Schubert I,
    4. et al.
    (2013) [Prevalence and temporal trend of known diabetes mellitus: results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1)]. [Article in German]. Bundesgesundheitsbl 56(5–6):668–677.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Noel-Storr AH,
    2. McCleery JM,
    3. Richard E,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: the STARDdem Initiative. Neurology 83(4):364–373.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Okereke OI,
    2. Pantoja-Galicia N,
    3. Copeland M,
    4. et al.
    (2012) The SIST-M: predictive validity of a brief structured clinical dementia rating interview. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 26(3):225–231.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Daly E,
    2. Zaitchik D,
    3. Copeland M,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Predicting conversion to Alzheimer disease using standardized clinical information. Arch Neurol 57(5):675–680.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Donner-Banzhoff N,
    2. Seidel J,
    3. Sikeler AM,
    4. et al.
    (2017) The phenomenology of the diagnostic process: a primary care-based survey. Med Decis Making 37(1):27–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Dhedhi SA,
    2. Swinglehurst D,
    3. Russell J
    (2014) ‘Timely’ diagnosis of dementia: what does it mean? A narrative analysis of GPs’ accounts. BMJ Open 4(3):e004439.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Sielk M,
    2. Abholz HH
    (2005) [Why do general practitioners characterize other patients as more depressive than psychiatrists do?]. [Article in German]. Z Allg Med 81(11):486–490.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Bösner S,
    2. Hartel S,
    3. Diederich J,
    4. Baum E
    (2014) Br J Gen Pract, Diagnosing headache in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs’ approaches. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X681325.
  42. 42.↵
    1. Donner-Banzhoff N,
    2. Haasenritter J,
    3. Hüllermeier E,
    4. et al.
    (2014) The comprehensive diagnostic study is suggested as a design to model the diagnostic process. J Clin Epidemiol 67(2):124–132.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Saposnik G,
    2. Redelmeier D,
    3. Ruff CC,
    4. Tobler PN
    (2016) Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 16:138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (688)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 688
November 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The value of the GP’s clinical judgement in predicting dementia: a multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in general practice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The value of the GP’s clinical judgement in predicting dementia: a multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in general practice
Michael Pentzek, Michael Wagner, Heinz-Harald Abholz, Horst Bickel, Hanna Kaduszkiewicz, Birgitt Wiese, Siegfried Weyerer, Hans-Helmut König, Martin Scherer, Steffi G Riedel-Heller, Wolfgang Maier, Alexander Koppara, for the AgeCoDe Study Group
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): e786-e793. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706037

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The value of the GP’s clinical judgement in predicting dementia: a multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in general practice
Michael Pentzek, Michael Wagner, Heinz-Harald Abholz, Horst Bickel, Hanna Kaduszkiewicz, Birgitt Wiese, Siegfried Weyerer, Hans-Helmut König, Martin Scherer, Steffi G Riedel-Heller, Wolfgang Maier, Alexander Koppara, for the AgeCoDe Study Group
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): e786-e793. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706037
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • clinical decision making
  • cognitive decline
  • dementia
  • general practice
  • intuition
  • validity

More in this TOC Section

  • Diagnostic delays for breathlessness: a qualitative study in primary care to understand current care and inform future pathways
  • Physical activity for chronic back pain: qualitative interviews among patients and GPs
  • OpenSAFELY NHS Service Restoration Observatory 2: changes in primary care activity across six clinical areas during the COVID-19 pandemic
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242