Open AccessComparing a Single Clinician Versus a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference Approach for Dementia Diagnostics
Author(s) -
Gorm Thorlacius-Ussing,
Marie Bruun,
Le Gjerum,
Kristian Steen Frederiksen,
Hanneke F.M. RhodiusMeester,
Wiesje M. van der Flier,
Gunhild Waldemar,
Steen Gregers Hasselbalch
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of alzheimer's disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.677
H-Index - 139
eISSN - 1875-8908
pISSN - 1387-2877
DOI - 10.3233/jad-210278
Subject(s) - etiology , medical diagnosis , medicine , dementia , multidisciplinary approach , diagnostic accuracy , frontotemporal dementia , confidence interval , prospective cohort study , disease , pediatrics , psychiatry , pathology , social science , sociology
Background: Evidence-based recommendations on the optimal evaluation approach for dementia diagnostics are limited. This impedes a harmonized workup across clinics and nations. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a multidisciplinary consensus conference compared to a single clinician approach. Methods: In this prospective study, we enrolled 457 patients with suspected cognitive decline, from two European memory clinics. A diagnostic evaluation was performed at baseline independently in two ways: 1) by a single clinician and 2) at a multidisciplinary consensus conference. A syndrome diagnosis and an etiological diagnosis was made. The confidence in the diagnosis was recorded using a visual analogue scale. An expert panel re-evaluation diagnosis served as reference for the baseline syndrome diagnosis and a 12-24-month follow-up diagnosis for the etiological diagnosis. Results: 439 patients completed the study. We observed 12.5%discrepancy (k = 0.81) comparing the baseline syndrome diagnoses of the single clinician to the consensus conference, and 22.3%discrepancy (k = 0.68) for the baseline etiological diagnosis. The accuracy of the baseline etiological diagnosis was significantly higher at the consensus conference and was driven mainly by increased accuracy in the MCI group. Confidence in the etiological diagnosis at baseline was significantly higher at the consensus conference (p < 0.005), especially for the frontotemporal dementia diagnosis. Conclusion: The multidisciplinary consensus conference performed better on diagnostic accuracy of disease etiology and increased clinicians’ confidence. This highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary diagnostic evaluation approach for dementia diagnostics, especially when evaluating patients in the MCI stage.