Linked Life Data

6661474

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/6661474

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
12
pubmed:dateCreated
1984-3-23
pubmed:abstractText
A critical examination of representative pathological studies published over the past four decades reveals that this literature fails to provide sufficient support for the antemortem differentiation of primary degenerative dementia (PDD) from multi-infarct dementia (MID) on the basis of clinical criteria. Similar conclusions with respect to clinical studies and articles are presented in Part I of this overview. Among the difficulties commonly encountered in the literature are sampling bias, retrospective design, nonblind assessments, inadequate sample size, failure to consider overlap (i.e., mixed cases), absence of pathological verification in the clinical studies and post hoc reasoning. The necessity to assure that one is dealing with a case of PDD as opposed to some other dementing process is self-evident. However, these reviews show that this capability has not been adequately established with respect to the differential diagnosis of PDD and MID; the evidence to date indicates that the clinical diagnosis of MID, in particular, should be made with caution until more conclusive methods become available.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Dec
pubmed:issn
0006-3223
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
18
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
1467-84
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-14
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1983
pubmed:articleTitle
Clinical differentiation of primary degenerative and multi-infarct dementia: a critical review of the evidence. Part II: Pathological studies.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.