Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29736698›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2018

Clinical utility of FDG-PET for the differential diagnosis among the main forms of dementia.

Peter J Nestor, Daniele Altomare, Cristina Festari, Alexander Drzezga, Jasmine Rivolta, Zuzana Walker, Femke Bouwman, Stefania Orini, Ian Law, Federica Agosta and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Outcomes of clinical utility in amyloid-PET studies: state of art and future perspectives.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 9 countries.

Peter J NestorQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland and at the Mater Hospital Brisbane, Brisbane, Australia. p.nestor@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5860-5921
Daniele AltomareLANE - Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging & Epidemiology, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Cristina FestariLANE - Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging & Epidemiology, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Alexander DrzezgaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Cologne, Germany.
Jasmine RivoltaLANE - Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging & Epidemiology, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Zuzana WalkerDivision of Psychiatry & Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, University College London, London, UK.
Femke BouwmanDepartment of Neurology & Alzheimer Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stefania OriniAlzheimer Operative Unit, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
Ian LawDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Federica AgostaNeuroimaging Research Unit and Department of Neurology, Institute of Experimental Neurology, Division of Neuroscience, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Javier ArbizuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Marina BoccardiLANE - Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging & Epidemiology, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy. marina.boccardi@unige.ch.
Flavio NobiliDepartment of Neuroscience (DINOGMI), University of Genoa and Polyclinic IRCCS San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
Giovanni Battista FrisoniLANE - Laboratory of Alzheimer's Neuroimaging & Epidemiology, IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
EANM-EAN Task Force for the Prescription of FDG-PET for Dementing Neurodegenerative Disorders
University of Geneva · CHSouth Essex Partnership University Foundation NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLCentro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli · ITMater Research · AUOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITThe University of Queensland · AUVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the clinical utility of FDG-PET as a diagnostic aid for differentiating Alzheimer's disease (AD; both typical and atypical forms), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), vascular dementia (VaD) and non-degenerative pseudodementia.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PICO model to extract evidence from relevant studies. An expert panel then voted on six different diagnostic scenarios using the Delphi method.

resultsThe level of empirical study evidence for the use of FDG-PET was considered good for the discrimination of DLB and AD; fair for discriminating FTLD from AD; poor for atypical AD; and lacking for discriminating DLB from FTLD, AD from VaD, and for pseudodementia. Delphi voting led to consensus in all scenarios within two iterations. Panellists supported the use of FDG-PET for all PICOs-including those where study evidence was poor or lacking-based on its negative predictive value and on the assistance it provides when typical patterns of hypometabolism for a given diagnosis are observed.

conclusionAlthough there is an overall lack of evidence on which to base strong recommendations, it was generally concluded that FDG-PET has a diagnostic role in all scenarios. Prospective studies targeting diagnostically uncertain patients for assessing the added value of FDG-PET would be highly desirable.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyAlzheimer DiseaseDementiaDiagnosis, DifferentialFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansLewy Body DiseaseProspective StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F18Alzheimer’s diseaseAtypical AlzheimerDelphiDementia with Lewy bodiesFDG-PETFrontotemporal lobar degenerationPICOPseudodementiaVascular dementia

Identifiers

PMID29736698
OpenAlexW2802699769

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.