Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30707187›Full record

ReviewContinuum (Minneapolis, Minn.)2019

Posterior Cortical Atrophy.

Jonathan M Schott, Sebastian J Crutch

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Diagnosis and Management of Posterior Cortical Atrophy.Current treatment options in neurology · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  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

2 authors.

Jonathan M Schott
Sebastian J Crutch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis article presents an overview of the clinical syndrome of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), including its pathologic underpinnings, clinical presentation, investigation findings, diagnostic criteria, and management. RECENT

findingsPCA is usually an atypical form of Alzheimer disease with relatively young age at onset. New diagnostic criteria allow patients to be diagnosed on a syndromic basis as having a primary visual (pure) form or more complex (plus) form of PCA and, when possible, on a disease-specific basis using biomarkers or underlying pathology. Imaging techniques have demonstrated that some pathologic processes are concordant (atrophy, hypometabolism, tau deposition) with clinical symptoms and some are discordant (widespread amyloid deposition). International efforts are under way to establish the genetic underpinnings of this typically sporadic form of Alzheimer disease. In the absence of specific disease-modifying therapies, a number of practical suggestions can be offered to patients and their families to facilitate reading and activities of daily living, promote independence, and improve quality of life SUMMARY: While rare, PCA is an important diagnostic entity for neurologists, ophthalmologists, and optometrists to recognize to allow for early accurate diagnosis and appropriate patient management. PCA provides an important opportunity to investigate the causes of selective vulnerability in Alzheimer disease.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseAtrophyBrainHumansNeuroimagingQuality of LifeVision Disorders

Identifiers

PMID30707187
PMCPMC6548537
OpenAlexW2914697151

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.