Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29164602›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

18F PET with flutemetamol for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Gabriel Martínez, Robin Wm Vernooij, Paulina Fuentes Padilla, Javier Zamora, Leon Flicker, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. PET Imaging of Neurofluids.Neuroimaging clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Non-Invasive Solutions to Identify Distinctions Between Healthy and Mild Cognitive Impairments Participants.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The pathway to secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2020
    Article
  19. Frontiers in medicine · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Gabriel MartínezIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167, Pavelló 18 Planta 0, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 08025.
Robin Wm Vernooij
Paulina Fuentes Padilla
Javier Zamora
Leon Flicker
Xavier Bonfill Cosp
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre · ESFundació ACE · ESInstituto Cajal · ESUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background

objectivesTo determine the DTA of the SEARCH

methodsThe most recent search for this review was performed in May 2017. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). We also searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia & Cognitive Improvement Group's specialised register of dementia studies (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/). We checked the reference lists of any relevant studies and systematic reviews, and performed citation tracking using the Science Citation Index to identify any additional relevant studies. No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that had prospectively defined cohorts with any accepted definition of MCI at time of performing the test and the use of DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles and abstracts identified in electronic-database searches. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data to create two-by-two tables, showing the binary test results cross-classified with the binary reference standard. We used these data to calculate sensitivities, specificities, and their 95% confidence intervals. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool plus some additional items to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. MAIN

resultsProgression from MCI to ADD was evaluated in 243 participants from two studies. The studies reported data on 19 participants with two years of follow-up and on 224 participants with three years of follow-up. Nine (47.4%) participants converted at two years follow-up and 81 (36.2%) converted at three years of follow-up.There were concerns about participant selection and sampling in both studies. The index test domain in one study was considered unclear and in the second study it was considered at low risk of bias. For the reference standard domain, one study was considered at low risk and the second study was considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Regarding the domains of flow and timing, both studies were considered at high risk of bias. MCI to ADD;Progression from MCI to ADD at two years of follow-up had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 52 to 100) and a specificity of 80% (95% CI 44 to 97) by quantitative assessment by SUVR (n = 19, 1 study).Progression from MCI to ADD at three years of follow-up had a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 53 to 75) and a specificity of 69% (95% CI 60 to 76) by visual assessment (n = 224, 1 study).There was no information regarding the other two objectives in this systematic review (SR): progression from MCI to other forms of dementia and progression to any form of dementia at follow-up. AUTHORS'

conclusionsDue to the varying sensitivity and specificity for predicting the progression from MCI to ADD and the limited data available, we cannot recommend routine use of

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyAgedAlzheimer DiseaseAmyloidAniline CompoundsBenzothiazolesBiomarkersCognitive DysfunctionConfidence IntervalsDisease ProgressionEarly DiagnosisFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansAmyloidAniline CompoundsBenzothiazolesBiomarkersflutemetamolRadiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID29164602
PMCPMC6486287
OpenAlexW2768782243

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.