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-

Diagnostic accuracy of BASIC-Q for detection of cognitive impairment in a primary care setting – a cross-validation study

Diagnostic accuracy of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition case-finding instrument in a general practice setting and comparison with other widely used brief cognitive tests-a cross-validation study

Validation of the Six-Item Screener to Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care Settings in China

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

A1362 Bayesian Estimation on Diagnostic Performance of Dementia Screening Tests in the Absence of a Gold Standard

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

Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice

Brief cognitive tests as a decision-making tool in primary care. A population and validation study

Diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity of the German quick mild cognitive impairment screen

Web-based cognitive screening in bipolar disorder: validation of the Internet-based Cognitive Assessment Tool in remote administration settings

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

Clinical evaluation of brief cognitive assessment measures for patients with severe dementia

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

Early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia through basic and instrumental activities of daily living: Development of a new evaluation tool

A systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy of brief cognitive tests to detect amnestic mild cognitive impairment

Validation of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen in an American Sample of Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia

The Validity of the Norwegian Version of the Cognitive Function Instrument

Multicenter Validation of the English Version of the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec: a Cognitive Screening Tool for Atypical Dementias

Validation of the ki:e SB‐C a Novel Digital Speech Biomarker for Cognition in a Dutch Memory Clinic Population

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

Six-Item Screener to Identify Cognitive Impairment Among Potential Subjects for Clinical Research