applause sign
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

22
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Author(s):  
Koustav Chatterjee ◽  
Supriyo Choudhury ◽  
Santosh Trivedi ◽  
Purba Basu ◽  
Hrishikesh Kumar

Author(s):  
Derya Kaya ◽  
Neziha Erken ◽  
Mehmet Selman Ontan ◽  
Zekiye Sultan Altun ◽  
Ahmet Turan Isik

2018 ◽  
Vol 266 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Schönecker ◽  
◽  
Franz Hell ◽  
Kai Bötzel ◽  
Elisabeth Wlasich ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.J. Larner

Background/Aims: “Number needed to” metrics may hold more intuitive appeal for clinicians than standard diagnostic accuracy measures. The aim of this study was to calculate “number needed to diagnose” (NND), “number needed to predict” (NNP), and “number needed to misdiagnose” (NNM) for neurological signs of possible value in assessing cognitive status. Methods: Data sets from pragmatic diagnostic accuracy studies examining easily observed and dichotomised neurological signs (“attended alone” sign, “attended with” sign, head turning sign, applause sign, la maladie du petit papier) were analysed to calculate the NND, NNP, and NNM. Results: All measures of discrimination showed broad ranges. The range of NND and NNP suggested that these signs were, with a single exception, of value for correctly diagnosing or predicting cognitive status (presence or absence of cognitive impairment) when between 2 and 4 patients were examined. However, NNM showed similar values (range 1–5 patients) suggesting risk of misdiagnosis. Conclusion: NND, NNP, and NNM may be useful, intuitive, metrics in assessing the utility of diagnostic tests in day-to-day clinical practice. A ratio of NNM to either NND or NNP, termed the likelihood to diagnose or misdiagnose, may clarify the utility or inutility of diagnostic tests.


2015 ◽  
Vol 128 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bonello ◽  
A. J. Larner

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. e4.192-e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bonello ◽  
Andrew Larner

ObjectiveTo examine the diagnostic utility of the applause sign for dementia and MCI in consecutive referrals to cognitive disorders clinic.ResultsOver a 10–month period (January–November 2014) 243 consecutive new outpatients (F:M=124:119; age range 18–91 years, median 61) were administered the applause test (“clap 3 times”). Of the 240 with interpretable results, 46 were diagnosed with dementia (DSM–IV criteria), 66 with MCI (Petersen criteria), and 128 with no cognitive impairment. Using the categorization of applause sign from Luzzi et al. (2011), the percentage of patients with any cognitive impairment who clapped 3–10, and >10 times was 38.9, 60, 70.8, and 87.5 respectively. The null hypothesis that the proportion of patients with cognitive impairment did not differ significantly between groups was rejected (χ2=21.4, df=3, p<0.001). Abnormal scores (>3 claps) had sensitivities for dementia, MCI, and any cognitive impairment of 0.52, 0.24, and 0.36 respectively, and specificities of 0.84, 0.88, and 0.88.ConclusionsThis pragmatic study confirms and extends the results of a previous smaller study (n=100) of applause sign in the cognitive clinic, showing the applause sign to be a high specificity low sensitivity test for cognitive impairment.


2015 ◽  
Vol 137 ◽  
pp. 8-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna M.H. Anneser ◽  
Marija Krzovska ◽  
Gian Domenico Borasio ◽  
Adrian Danek

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1268-1269 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.J. Weerkamp ◽  
G. Tissingh ◽  
P.J.E. Poels ◽  
S.U. Zuidema ◽  
M. Munneke ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (7) ◽  
pp. 823-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Luzzi ◽  
K. Fabi ◽  
M. Pesallaccia ◽  
V. Cafazzo ◽  
M. Silvestrini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1734-1736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svetlana Tomic ◽  
Mirjana Vladetic ◽  
Kresimir Solic ◽  
Sanja Misevic ◽  
Silva Butkovic Soldo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document