title: Dementia diagnostic guidelines: methodologies, results, and implementation costs.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To facilitate the diagnostic process for dementia. Five guidelines and four consensus statements on specific diagnostic recommendations, specialist referral recommendations, and costs of recommended diagnostic procedures were compared and summarized.
  
  
  METHODS
  A MEDLINE search from 1984 to 1999 and queries to experts yielded 14 guidelines and consensus statements that addressed the diagnosis of dementia. Only nine documents which had national or international scopes were reviewed.
  
  
  METHODS
  Comparisons were made on the specific diagnostic criteria for patient history, clinical examination, functional assessment, laboratory tests, neuroimaging, and other diagnostic tests, as well as specialist referral recommendations and costs for the recommended diagnostic procedures. The first three authors reviewed independently each document and completed a table on specific recommendations in each document. To settle disagreements about specific recommendations, they discussed them until they reached a consensus. To interpret the intent of vague statements, they used their best judgment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The documents differed in content, recommendations, and development methodology. They were based on either expert opinion or scientific evidence, or both. Although the nine documents were nearly unanimous in several recommendations, including assessing the presenting problem, taking a medical history, conducting physical and neurological examinations, and assessing the patient's mental and cognitive status, considerable differences in recommendations were common. Such differences led to large differentials in the estimated costs (range, $190 to $2,001) for recommended diagnostic assessments.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A systematic approach to diagnostic recommendations for dementia may induce greater consistency among guidelines and consensus statements. The current approach leads to considerable variability in recommendations and estimated costs.
authors.affiliation: College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, University of California at Los Angeles, USA.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Beck
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Cody
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Souder
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: G W
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Small
mesh_terms: D003245:Consensus Statements as Topic; D003704:Dementia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D003943:Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008487:Medical History Taking / Q000592:standards; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests / Q000592:standards; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity