Abstract
Background The accuracy of General Practitioners’ (GPs’) clinical judgement for dementia is uncertain.
Aim Investigate the accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgement for the diagnosis of dementia.
Design and Setting Diagnostic test accuracy study, recruiting from 21 practices around Bristol.
Method The clinical judgement of the treating GP (index test) was based on the information immediately available at their initial consultation with a person aged over 70 years who had cognitive symptoms. The reference standard was an assessment by a specialist clinician, based on a standardised clinical examination and made according to ICD-10 criteria for dementia.
Results 240 people were recruited, with a median age of 80 years (IQR 75 to 84 years), of whom 126 (53%) were men and 132 (55%) had dementia. The median duration of symptoms was 24 months (IQR 12 to 36 months) and the median ACE-III score was 75 (IQR 65 to 87). GP clinical judgement had sensitivity 56% (95% CI 47% to 65%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 81% to 94%). Positive likelihood ratio was higher in people aged 70-79 years (6.5, 95% CI 2.9 to 15) compared to people aged ≥ 80 years (3.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.6), and in women (10.4, 95% CI 3.4 to 31.7) compared to men (3.2, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.2), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was similar in all groups.
Conclusion A GP clinical judgement of dementia is specific, but confirmatory testing is needed for symptomatic people who GPs judge as not having dementia.
How this fits in Previous studies in this area have investigated the accuracy of GP clinical judgement as a screening test for dementia in unselected people attending a primary care clinic; or as a retrospective test based on their knowledge of their patient; or derived the accuracy of judgement from the medical records, which may not reflect the judgement of the clinician. The role of the GP in supporting a more effective route to diagnosis for people with dementia is a research priority for patients, carers and clinicians. This study shows that, in a symptomatic older adult, prospective clinical judgement may be useful for helping to confirm a diagnosis of dementia, whereas GP judgement should not by itself be used to exclude dementia.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Wellcome Trust (Fellowship 108804/Z/15/z), Avon Primary Care Research Collaboration, The Claire Wand fund, and the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care research. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [108804/Z/15/z]. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The National Research Ethics Service Committee London - Bromley (reference 14/LO/2025) gave a favourable ethical opinion on 25 November 2014. NHS Research and Development approvals were granted by Avon Primary Care Research Collaboration on behalf of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning groups. The University of Bristol acted as Sponsor.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Corrected typographic error in Table 1: GPs judged 27 people as having CIND who were actually normal. Table in original submission gave 23 as value (should be 27). All other data double checked and remains correct
Data Availability
For access to data please contact the corresponding author
