Abstract: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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Numbers of people with dementia and other cognit -Abstract Truncated-

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly for Assessing Severity of Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease

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

Considerations for the use of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) in cross‐country comparisons of cognitive aging and dementia

A Risk Factor Analysis of Cognitive Impairment in Elderly Patients with Chronic Diseases in a Chinese Population

The Discriminant Validity of Single-Question Assessments of Subjective Cognitive Complaints in an Asian Older Adult Population.

Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument-Chinese Revised Version in Participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease

Pilot Evaluating Informant Questionnaire of the Community Screening Instrument for Dementia in a Sample of Community Elderly Population

Validity of Cognitive Function Assessed by a Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire As Compared with Objective Cognitive Tests in Community‐dwelling Older Adults in China

The Chinese version of informant AD8 for mild cognitive impairment and dementia screening in community-dwelling older adults

Estimation of diagnostic performance of dementia screening tests: Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing test and Ascertain Dementia 8 questionnaire.

Cross-cultural difference and validation of the Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in older adults residing in Eastern China: preliminary findings.

Discriminant Validity and Time‐effectiveness of A Stepwise Dementia Case‐finding Approach in an Asian Elderly Community

A Study on Reliability and Validity of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Eastern China: Preliminary Findings

The Number Symbol Coding Task: A brief measure of executive function to detect dementia and cognitive impairment

A Mobile Interactive Cognitive Self-Assessment Scale for Screening Alzheimer’s Disease

Differentiating Alzheimers disease from mild cognitive impairment: a quick screening tool based on machine learning

Screening for Dementia in Older Adults: Comparison of Mini-Mental State Examination, Mini-Cog, Clock Drawing Test and AD8

The cognitive subscale of Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, Chinese version in staging of Alzheimer disease.

Distribution of Baseline Scores of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale among the Elderly in Beijing

Application Study of Quick Cognitive Screening Test in Identifying Mild Cognitive Impairment

Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire in patients with Alzheimer' s disease