Cited by 29Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of the 10/66 Dementia Research Group Diagnostic Assessment for Dementia in Arabic: A Study in Lebanon

Open access
Phung, Kieu T. T., Chaaya, Monique, Waldemar, Gunhild, Atweh, Samir, Asmar, Khalil, Ghusn, Husam, Karam, Georges, Sawaya, Raja, Khoury, Rose Mary, Zeinaty, Ibrahim, Salman, Sandrine, Hammoud, Salem, Radwan, Wael, Bassil, Nazem, Prince, Martin·2014·Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology

Abstract

Objectives: In the North Africa and Middle East region, the illiteracy rates among older people are high, posing a great challenge to cognitive assessment. Validated diagnostic instruments for dementia in Arabic are lacking, hampering the development of dementia research in the region. The study aimed at validating the Arabic version of the 10/66 Dementia Research Group (DRG) diagnostic assessment for dementia to determine whether it is suitable for case ascertainment in epidemiological research. Methods: A total of 244 participants older than 65 years were included, 100 with normal cognition and 144 with mild to moderate dementia. Dementia was diagnosed by clinicians according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria. Depression was diagnosed using the Geriatric Mental State. Trained interviewers blind to the cognitive status of the participants administered the 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment to the participants and interviewed the caregivers. The discriminatory ability of the 10/66 DRG assessment and its subcomponents were evaluated against the clinical diagnoses. Results: Half of the participants had no formal education and 49% of them were depressed. The 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment showed excellent sensitivity (92.0%), specificity (95.1%), positive predictive value (PPV, 92.9%), and low false-positive rates among controls with no formal education (8.1%) and depression (5.6%). Each subcomponent of the 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment independently predicted dementia diagnosis. The predictive ability of the 10/66 DRG assessment was superior to that of its subcomponents. Conclusion: The 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment for dementia is well suited for case ascertainment in epidemiological studies among Arabic-speaking older population with high prevalence of illiteracy.

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 · 10.1177/0891988714532019

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • The overall predictive ability of the 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment and the DemeGraph were comparable, both having AUC of 0.97.

    “The overall predictive ability of the 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment and the DemeGraph were comparable, both having AUC of 0.97 [10,7].”

    From Dementia prevalence, care arrangement and access to care in Lebanon: a pilot study (2017) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Methods (page unavailable) say the study evaluated the 10/66 assessment’s predictive ability using AUROC, and the Results describe its excellent discriminatory performance. Our copy does not establish an AUC of 0.97 or compare the assessment with DemeGraph; searches for “0.97” and “DemeGraph” did not resolve those parts of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dementia and depression were assessed using the 10/66 Dementia Research Group diagnostic assessment and the Geriatric Mental State (GMS).

    “Dementia and depression were assessed by the 10/66 Dementia Research Group (DRG) diagnostic assessment and the Geriatric Mental State (GMS) (Phung et al, 2014).”

    From Dementia and family burden of care in Lebanon (2017) · cites this paper as Phung et al, 2014

  • The Arabic validated 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment has excellent discriminatory ability to diagnose dementia among older people with low education (sensitivity 92.0%, specificity 95.1%, PPV 92.9%).

    “The Arabic validated 10/66 DRG diagnostic assessment has demonstrated excellent discriminatory ability to diagnose dementia among older people with low education: 92.0% sensitivity, 95.1% specificity, and 92.9% positive predictive value (PPV) [7].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sibai AM, 2004, Bull World Health Organ, 82, 219
  2. Hall KS, 1993, Int J Methods Psychiatric Res, 3, 1
  3. Goodglass H, 1983, Assessment of Dysphasia and Related Disorders

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Phung, K. T. T., Chaaya, M., Waldemar, G., Atweh, S., Asmar, K., Ghusn, H., Karam, G., Sawaya, R., Khoury, R. M., Zeinaty, I., Salman, S., Hammoud, S., Radwan, W., Bassil, N., & Prince, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Neurology, Danish Dementia Research Center, The Neuroscience Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • American University of Beirut Medical Center (LB)
  • Saint George Hospital (LB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology
Published
2014-04-25
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
282-290
ISSN
  • 0891-9887 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5708
OpenAlex
W2170694593
Cited by
29
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r21ag039333-02)
  • National Institute on Aging (R21AG039333-01, R21 AG039333)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Arabic translation, cross-cultural validation, illiteracy, older adults, case ascertainment, dementia epidemiology, depression, sensitivity and specificity, Arabic-speaking populations
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Depression, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Language, Lebanon, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence, Case-Control Studies, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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