Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14570828›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2003

Neuroimaging tools to rate regional atrophy, subcortical cerebrovascular disease, and regional cerebral blood flow and metabolism: consensus paper of the EADC.

G B Frisoni, P h Scheltens, S Galluzzi, F M Nobili, N C Fox, P H Robert, H Soininen, L-O Wahlund, G Waldemar, E Salmon

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluation of MR Visual Rating Scales in Major Forms of Dementia.Journal of neurosciences in rural practice · 2021
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Is retinal vasculature a biomarker in amyloid proven Alzheimer's disease?Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

G B FrisoniLaboratory of Epidemiology & Neuroimaging, IRCCS San Giovanni di Dio-FBF, Brescia, Italy. papers@centroalzheimer.it
P h Scheltens
S Galluzzi
F M Nobili
N C Fox
P H Robert
H Soininen
L-O Wahlund
G Waldemar
E Salmon

Funding

Medical Research Council G116/143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging is a mainstay in the differential diagnosis of patients with cognitive impairment. The often equivocal clinical pictures, the prognostic uncertainty of the earliest stages of mild cognitive impairment, and the subtle brain changes mean that neuroimaging techniques are of potentially great incremental diagnostic value. A number of methods, ranging from very simple subjective visual ratings to highly sophisticated computerised tools, have been developed, which allow rating of structural and functional brain changes. The choice of the method is not obvious, and current guidelines provide no indications on which tools should be preferred. In this paper, we give indications for tools with demonstrated accuracy for detecting regional atrophy, cerebrovascular disease, and regional brain function, and discuss these according to increasing technological complexity, ranging from those with high feasibility that can be used at the patient's bedside to highly technological ones that require trained personnel and specific hardware and software.

Indexed as

AtrophyBrainBrain DiseasesCerebrovascular DisordersDementiaDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPoint-of-Care SystemsRegional Blood FlowSoftwareTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID14570828
PMCPMC1757396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.