↓ Skip to main content

The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) as a reliable screening tool for dementia when administered via videoconferencing in elderly post-acute hospital patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) as a reliable screening tool for dementia when administered via videoconferencing in elderly post-acute hospital patients
Published in
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, February 2012
DOI 10.1258/jtt.2012.sft113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lillian Wong, Melinda Martin-Khan, Jeff Rowland, Paul Varghese, Leonard C Gray

Abstract

The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) is a six-domain screening tool for dementia. We measured the practicality and reliability of administering the RUDAS in a telemedicine setting. Inpatients were recruited from a Geriatric and Rehabilitation Unit. Each patient was administered the RUDAS both face-to-face (FTF) and via videoconferencing (VC). The assessment format (FTF or VC) and the allocation of doctor (Doctor 1 or Doctor 2) to format were randomized. Scores from each assessment format were compared. The outcome of no difference was decided based on a difference in mean of no more than ± one point. Percentage agreement (agreement being ±2 points) was calculated on individual test scores. Forty-two patients (average age 75 years) completed the two assessments. Their mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score was 24.7 (range 10-30). The mean RUDAS score for both FTF and VC assessment was 24.9 (difference between the means 0.04), i.e. there was no significant difference. The results suggest that the RUDAS can be reliably administered via VC in post acute patients as an alternative to FTF administration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 5%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 11 13%
Other 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 29%
Psychology 18 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Computer Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 16 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,773
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
#966
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,537
of 156,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.