Cited by 31Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Agreement on Diagnosis Among Patients, Companions, and Professionals After a Dementia Evaluation

Open access

Abstract

A diagnosis of dementia is challenging to deliver and to hear; yet, agreement on diagnosis is essential for effective treatment for dementia. We examined consensus on the results of an evaluation of dementia in 90 patients assessed at an Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. Diagnostic impressions were obtained from 5 sources: (1) the physician's chart; (2) the patient who was evaluated; (3) a companion present at the evaluation; (4) a diagnostic summary written by a nurse present during the evaluation; and (5) raters who watched a video of the diagnostic disclosure conversation. Overall, diagnostic consensus was only moderate. Patients and companions exhibited just fair agreement with one another. Agreement was better between physicians and companions compared with that between physicians and patients, although it was imperfect between physicians and video raters and the written summary. Agreement among sources varied by dementia severity, with the lowest agreement occurring in instances of very mild dementia. This study documents discrepancies that can arise in diagnostic communication, which could influence adjustment to a diagnosis of dementia and decisions regarding future planning and care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wad.0b013e3182351c04

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bell, 1994, An Alzheimers disease bill of rights., Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen, 9, 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 31

Metadata

Authors
Zaleta, A. K., Carpenter, B. D., Porensky, E. K., Xiong, C., & Morris, J. C.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zaleta, Alexandra K.
  • Carpenter, Brian D.
  • Porensky, Emily K.
Venue
Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders
Published
2012-07
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
232-237
ISSN
0893-0341 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W85783613
Cited by
31
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P50AG005681, P01AG003991)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dementia diagnosis, diagnostic agreement, diagnosis disclosure, physician-patient communication, dementia severity, adjustment to diagnosis, Alzheimer's disease
MeSH terms
Aged, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Patients, Physicians, Reproducibility of Results, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review