Scholarlink

<p>Cognitive testing is an important part of dementia assessment. Widely used instruments such as the MMSE and MoCA are limited by language and educational biases. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was developed to overcome these barriers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies evaluating RUDAS against established diagnostic criteria for all-cause dementia. Case-control designs were excluded to minimise spectrum bias. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model. Eleven studies from nine countries were included (n = 3607). In secondary healthcare settings, pooled sensitivity was 84% (95%CI:70–92) and specificity 70% (95%CI:57–80) at the recommended threshold (22/23). Results from community-based studies could not be pooled for a summary measure. Educational levels influenced optimal cut-points. RUDAS demonstrates reasonable diagnostic accuracy but is affected by education. There is an urgent need to develop normative data for use in different settings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Diagnostic accuracy of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) for the detection of dementia

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月9日

查看全文
  • Sarah Cullum,
  • Alisha Vara,
  • Cristian Andrés González-Prieto,
  • Susan J. Yates,
  • Claudia L. Rivera-Rodriguez,
  • Anna Noel-Storr,
  • Daniel H. J. Davis,
  • Naaheed Mukadam

摘要

Cognitive testing is an important part of dementia assessment. Widely used instruments such as the MMSE and MoCA are limited by language and educational biases. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) was developed to overcome these barriers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies evaluating RUDAS against established diagnostic criteria for all-cause dementia. Case-control designs were excluded to minimise spectrum bias. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model. Eleven studies from nine countries were included (n = 3607). In secondary healthcare settings, pooled sensitivity was 84% (95%CI:70–92) and specificity 70% (95%CI:57–80) at the recommended threshold (22/23). Results from community-based studies could not be pooled for a summary measure. Educational levels influenced optimal cut-points. RUDAS demonstrates reasonable diagnostic accuracy but is affected by education. There is an urgent need to develop normative data for use in different settings.