No abstract

evaluation, almost the same trend was experienced, in addition to a higher specificity in CDT2. Our data lead us to conclude that the use of different clock timepoints in CDT1 and CDT2 does not give rise to major differences, but we cannot exclude the possibility that other time points might be more sensitive and specific.In conclusion, the findings that emerged from the two examined settings support the conception that the result of the CDT test does not appear to depend on the positions of the hand, and additionally suggest that the semiquantitative evaluation method is as sensitive as the quantitative method. ReferencesFolstein MF, Folstein SE, Mchugh PR. 1975. 'Mini-Mental State'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12: 189-198. Kálmán J, Magló czky E, Janka Z. 1995. Ó ra Rajzolási Teszt: Gyors és egyszerű demencia szűrőmó dszer. Psychiatr Hung 1: 11-18. Manos PJ, Wu R. 1994. The ten point clock test: a quick screen and grading method for cognitive impairment in medical and surgical patients. JT Int J Psychiatry Med 24: 229-244. Shulman KI, Shedletsky R, Silver IL. 1986. The challenge of time: clock drawing and cognitive function in the elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiary 1: 135-140. Wolf-Klein GP, Silverstone FA, Levy AP, Brod M. 1989. Screening for Alzheimer's disease by clock drawing. J Am Geriatr Soc 37: 730-734.