published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

Background: Little is known about the quality of the diagnostic evaluation and the validity of dementia diagnoses in young patients established in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of the diagnosis of dementia registered in the Danish nationwide hospital registers in young patients. Methods: Two hundred patients were randomly selected from 891 patients <65 years registered with a dementia diagnosis for the first time in 2008. The patients’ medical records were reviewed to evaluate if they fulfilled ICD-10 and/or DSM-IV criteria for dementia and current clinical criteria for specific dementia subtypes. Results: A registered diagnosis was found to be correct in only 59%. A misdiagnosis of dementia occurred primarily in patients with depression or alcohol abuse. Conclusion: Our results suggest that dementia is overregistered and overdiagnosed in young patients. This may be due to a different symptom profile of dementia in young patients, lack of knowledge among clinical physicians and the wide range of conditions which may be misinterpreted as dementia.

Measures for subjective cognitive decline are not interchangeable when used in memory clinics and the application of different scales in previous studies is an important factor as to why studies show variability in the association between subjective cognitive decline and background data and/or clinical results. Careful consideration should be taken as to which questions are relevant and have validity when operationalizing subjective cognitive decline.