BackgroundTo assess and compare the effectiveness and costs of Phototest, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) to screen for dementia (DEM) and cognitive impairment (CI).MethodsA phase III study was conducted over one year in consecutive patients with suspicion of CI or DEM at four Primary Care (PC) centers. After undergoing all screening tests at the PC center, participants were extensively evaluated by researchers blinded to screening test results in a Cognitive-Behavioral Neurology Unit (CBNU). The gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists. Effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and by the kappa index of concordance between test results and gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices and hospital accounts.ResultsThe study included 140 subjects (48 with DEM, 37 with CI without DEM, and 55 without CI). The MIS could not be applied to 23 illiterate subjects (16.4%). For DEM, the maximum effectiveness of the MMSE was obtained with different cutoff points as a function of educational level [k = 0.31 (95% Confidence interval [95%CI], 0.19-0.43), DA = 0.60 (95%CI, 0.52-0.68)], and that of the MIS with a cutoff of 3/4 [k = 0.63 (95%CI, 0.48-0.78), DA = 0.83 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)]. Effectiveness of the Phototest [k = 0.71 (95%CI, 0.59-0.83), DA = 0.87 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)] was similar to that of the MIS and higher than that of the MMSE. Costs were higher with MMSE (275.9 ± 193.3€ [mean ± sd euros]) than with Phototest (208.2 ± 196.8€) or MIS (201.3 ± 193.4€), whose costs did not significantly differ. For CI, the effectiveness did not significantly differ between MIS [k = 0.59 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.97)] and Phototest [k = 0.58 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.78 (95%CI, 0.64-0.95)] and was lowest for the MMSE [k = 0.27 (95%CI, 0.09-0.45), DA = 0.69 (95%CI, 0.56-0.84)]. Costs were higher for MMSE (393.4 ± 121.8€) than for Phototest (287.0 ± 197.4€) or MIS (300.1 ± 165.6€), whose costs did not significantly differ.ConclusionMMSE is not an effective instrument in our setting. For both DEM and CI, the Phototest and MIS are more effective and less costly, with no difference between them. However, MIS could not be applied to the appreciable percentage of our population who were illiterate.

Objective. To evaluate the relevance of ongoing nociceptive joint inputs to the maintenance of widespread pain hypersensitivity in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether a reversal in the widespread pressure hypersensitivity together with an improvement in pain and function occurs after total hip replacement in these patients.Methods. Forty patients with hip OA participated. Twenty patients underwent total hip replacement, and the other 20 patients were assigned to a waiting list. Pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs) over the second metacarpal bone and the gluteus medius, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, and tibialis anterior muscles were assessed bilaterally with a pressure algometer before and 3 months after total hip replacement surgery. Assessments of pain intensity (by visual analog scale [VAS]), physical function (by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), and health status (by the Short Form 12 health survey and the EuroQol 5-domain index) were also performed.Results. Patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty exhibited a reduction in widespread pressure pain hyperalgesia (increases in PPTs) over local and distant pain-free areas, as compared with before surgery and as compared with the patients assigned to the waiting list. PPTs were related to hip pain intensity, and significant correlations were found between higher VAS scores and lower average PPTs over all points assessed (؊0.409 < r < ؊0.306, P < 0.05). Patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty exhibited a greater decrease in pain intensity and greater increases in function and health status than did those who were on the waiting list. Changes in the intensity of hip pain were moderately associated with changes in pressure pain sensitivity in the hip arthroplasty group.

These results coincide with the sensitivity and specificity values obtained in the validation of the instrument in Spanish-speaking women in the USA, which also recommend the use of the first criterion. The Spanish short version of the WAST is a suitable instrument to be used by health professionals for the early detection of gender violence in the healthcare context of Spain. However, because of its low specificity, this instrument should be used with caution.

BackgroundIlliteracy, a universal problem, limits the utilization of the most widely used short cognitive tests. Our objective was to assess and compare the effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment (CI) and dementia (DEM) screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates.MethodsPhase III diagnostic test evaluation study was performed during one year in four Primary Care centers, prospectively including individuals with suspicion of CI or DEM. All underwent the Eurotest, Memory Alteration Test (M@T), and Phototest, applied in a balanced manner. Clinical, functional, and cognitive studies were independently performed in a blinded fashion in a Cognitive Behavioral Neurology Unit, and the gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists on the basis of these results. Effectiveness of tests was assessed as the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and the kappa index of concordance (k) with respect to gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices at the time and hospital accounts.ResultsThe study included 139 individuals: 47 with DEM, 36 with CI, and 56 without CI. No significant differences in effectiveness were found among the tests. For DEM screening: Eurotest (k = 0.71 [0.59–0.83], DA = 0.87 [0.80–0.92]), M@T (k = 0.72 [0.60–0.84], DA = 0.87 [0.80–0.92]), Phototest (k = 0.70 [0.57–0.82], DA = 0.86 [0.79–0.91]). For CI screening: Eurotest (k = 0.67 [0.55–0.79]; DA = 0.83 [0.76–0.89]), M@T (k = 0.52 [0.37–0.67]; DA = 0.80 [0.72–0.86]), Phototest (k = 0.59 [0.46–0.72]; DA = 0.79 [0.71–0.86]). There were no differences in the cost of DEM screening, but the cost of CI screening was significantly higher with M@T (330.7±177.1€, mean±sd) than with Eurotest (294.1±195.0€) or Phototest (296.0±196.5€). Application time was shorter with Phototest (2.8±0.8 min) than with Eurotest (7.1±1.8 min) or M@T (6.8±2.2 min).ConclusionsEurotest, M@T, and Phototest are equally effective. Eurotest and Phototest are both less expensive options but Phototest is the most efficient, requiring the shortest application time.

The scale is useful for the analysis of partner violence against women in both a research setting and a healthcare setting.