No abstract

Mr. A, a 45-year-old professional, presents for a routine health check-up, during which he states "I am quite worried about getting Alzheimer disease, just like my mother." He goes on to say "As you know, our family has been caring for her while she slowly deteriorated. A month ago, we had to move her to a long-term care facility. It is really taking a toll on our family. So I want to know what my chances are of escaping this terrible disease. I want to do everything I can to avoid my mother's fate." Mr. A then goes on to say that his mother, who is alive, had her first symptoms of dementia at the age of 74 years. To his knowledge, no other family members, including aunts and uncles, have been affected by dementia. Mr. A is relatively healthy. He has never smoked and rarely drinks alcohol. However, he has been taking medication for hypertension for over a year and has hyperlipi- Methods:We developed evidence-based guidelines using systematic literature searches, with specific criteria for study selection and quality assessment, and a clear and transparent decision-making process. We selected studies published from January 1996 to December 2005 that met the following criteria: dementia (all-cause, Alzheimer disease or vascular dementia) as the outcome; longitudinal cohort study; study population broadly reflective of Canadian demographics; and genetic risk factors and general risk factors (e.g., hypertension, education, occupation and chemical exposure) identified. We graded the strength of evidence using the criteria of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Results: Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. Of 1721 articles on genetic risk factors, 62 that met our inclusion criteria were deemed to be of good or fair quality. On the basis of evidence from these articles, we made recommendations for the risk assessment and primary prevention of Alzheimer disease. For the primary prevention of Alzheimer's disease, there is good evidence for controlling vascular risk factors, especially hypertension (grade A), and weak or insufficient evidence for manipulation of lifestyle factors and prescribing of medications (grade C). There is good evidence to avoid estrogens and high-dose (> 400 IU/d) of vitamin E for this purpose (grade E). Genetic counselling and testing may be offered to at-risk individuals with an apparent autosomal dominant inheritance (grade B). Screening for the apolipoprotein E genotype in asymptomatic individuals in the general population is not recommended (grade E).

To develop evidence based consensus statements on which to build clinical practice guidelines for primary care physicians towards the recognition, assessment and management of dementing disorders; ii) to disseminate and evaluate the impact of these statements and guidelines built on these statements. O p t i o n s : Structured approach to assessment, including recommended laboratory tests, choices for neuroimaging and referral; management of complications (especially behaviour problems and depression) and use of cognitive enhancing agents. Potential outcomes: Consistent and improved clinical care of persons with dementia; cost containment by more selective use of laboratory investigations, neuroimaging and referrals; appropriate use of cognitive enhancing agents. E v i d e n c e : Authors of each background paper were entrusted to: perform a literature search, discover additional relevant material including references cited in retrieved articles; consult with other experts in the field and then synthesize information. Standard rules of evidence were applied. Based upon this evidence, consensus statements were developed by a group of experts, guided by a steering committee of eight individuals from the areas of Neurology, Geriatric Medicine, Psychiatry, Family Développer des énoncés consensuels basés sur les données actuelles de la science sur lesquels on puisse construire des lignes directrices cliniques pour les médecins de première ligne pour l'identification, l'évaluation et la prise en charge des patients déments; ii) diffuser et évaluer l'impact de ces énoncés et des lignes directrices basées sur ces énoncés. O p t i o n s : Une approche structurée pour l'évaluation, incluant les épreuves de laboratoire recommandées, les choix d'examens de neuroimagerie et de référence en spécialité; la prise en charge des complications (spécialement des problèmes de comportement et de dépression) et l'utilisation d'agents qui améliorent la fonction cognitive. Bénéfices potentiels: Des soins améliorés et fiables aux personnes démentes; un contrôle des coûts par une utilisation plus judicieuse des examens de laboratoire, de la neuroimagerie et de la référence en spécialité; une utilisation appropriée des agents qui améliorent la fonction cognitive. É v i d e n c e : Les auteurs de chaque article de fond ont reçu le mandat de faire une recherche de la littérature pour ajouter des informations pertinentes incluant les références citées dans ces articles; consulter d'autres experts dans ce domaine et faire une synthèse de l'information. Ces tâches ont été effectuées conformément aux normes de la preuve. Sur la foi de cette évidence, les énoncés consensuels ont été développés par un groupe d'experts, guidé par un comité de direction de huit individus des domaines de la neurologie, de la gériatrie, de la psychiatrie, de la médecine familiale, de la médecine préventive et des systèmes de santé. Va l e u r s : Des recommandations ont été développées en portant une attention particulière sur le contexte des soins de première ligne ...

A consistent finding in the literature on measures of clinical problem-solving scores is that there are very low correlations across different problems. This phenomenon is commonly labelled 'content-specificity', implying that the scores differ because the content knowledge necessary to solve the problems differs. The present study tests this hypothesis by presenting groups of residents and clinical clerks with a series of simulated patient problems in which content was systematically varied. Each subject also completed a multiple choice test with questions linked to each diagnosis presented in the clinical problems. Three of the four problem-solving scores showed low correlations, even to two presentations of the same problem, and no relationship to content differences. None of the scores were related to performance on the multiple choice test. The results suggest that variability in problem-solving scores is related to factors other than content knowledge, and several possibilities are discussed.

The evolution of clinical reasoning in medical students was studied. A cross-sectional sample consisted of randomly-selected medical students from three classes. Additionally, twenty-two students were observed at yearly intervals from the preclerkship period to the first post-graduate year. Subjects were observed in a clinical examination of a simulated patient, and their thought processes were abstracted from a 'stimulated recall' of the videotaped encounter. The data were transcribed and coded for computer analysis, yielding several variables characterizing the clinical reasoning process, and four measures of outcome of the encounter. Analysis of variance of differences between students at various educational levels and a doctor criterion group indicated that the majority of the process variables were unrelated to educational level. By contrast, diagnostic and management outcomes were positively related to education. The single process variable which was related to both educational level and outcome was an 'hypothesis aggregate score', a measure of the content of the student's diagnostic hypotheses. The results of the study indicate that the problem-solving or clinical reasoning process remains relatively constant from medical school entry to practice. This observation has important implications for clinical teaching and evaluation.

Stroke and cognitive impairment pose risk for each other. CIND is highly prevalent, and some of its subtypes may represent treatable preludes to stroke and/or dementia.

Organizational support is necessary for continuing education programs to be effective and ongoing expert support is needed to enable and reinforce learning.

No abstract