% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Bartels:282574,
      author       = {Bartels, Claudia and Meiberth, Dix and Frommann, Ingo and
                      Wagner, Michael and Belz, Michael and Schild, Ann-Katrin},
      title        = {{A}nwendung neuropsychologischer {K}riterien zur
                      syndromalen {D}iagnose eines {M}ild {C}ognitive {I}mpairment
                      ({MCI}): {U}mfrage zum {S}tatus quo unter
                      {G}edächtnisambulanzen des {DNG} e. {V}. | {U}sing
                      {N}europsychological {C}riteria for the {S}yndromal
                      {D}iagnosis of {M}ild {C}ognitive {I}mpairment ({MCI}):
                      {S}urvey of the {S}tatus quo in the {G}erman {N}etwork of
                      {M}emory {C}linics e. {V}.},
      journal      = {Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie},
      volume       = {36},
      number       = {4},
      issn         = {1016-264X},
      address      = {Göttingen [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Huber},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2025-01334},
      pages        = {185 - 202},
      year         = {2025},
      abstract     = {Different criteria are used for the syndromal
                      classification of cognitive deficits as Mild Cognitive
                      Impairment (MCI). An online survey among neuropsychological
                      professionals in the German Network of Memory Clinics (DNG)
                      determined the status quo on the use of neuropsychological
                      MCI criteria. The participants claimed to assess relevant
                      cognitive domains and to consider subjective information
                      (frequently to always in $72.1 \%)$ and further diagnostic
                      results for their syndromal decision (caregiver report:
                      frequently to always in $81.4 \%,$ imaging/biomarker
                      results in $69.8 \%).$ MCI is mostly further
                      subcategorized (amnestic vs. nonamnestic MCI in $83.7 \%,$
                      single vs. multidomain in $72.1 \%).$ Within institutions,
                      $67.4 \%$ use standardized criteria, mostly those of
                      Molinuevo et al. (2017; $23.3 \%).$ Almost all
                      investigators $(93 \%)$ feel confident in assigning a
                      syndromal MCI diagnosis. The results reflect the use of
                      standardized criteria within – but not across –
                      institutions, providing a basis for harmonization as a
                      long-term objective.},
      cin          = {AG Wagner},
      ddc          = {150},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1011201},
      pnm          = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.1024/1016-264X/a000424},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/282574},
}