Observational studyMedicine2019
Impact of amyloid-PET in daily clinical management of patients with cognitive impairment fulfilling appropriate use criteria.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Use by Primary Care Providers and Dementia Specialists.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography and Subsequent Health Care Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia.JAMA neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the use of amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) in routine clinical practice, in a selected population with cognitive impairment that meets appropriate use criteria (AUC).A multicenter, observational, prospective case-series study of 211patients from 2 level-3 hospitals who fulfilled clinical AUC for amyloid-PET scan in a naturalistic setting. Certainty degree was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale: 0 (very low probability); 1 (low probability); 2 (intermediate probability); 3 (high probability); and 4 (practically sure), before and after amyloid PET. The treatment plan was considered as cognition-specific or noncognition-specific.Amyloid-PET was positive in 118 patients (55.9%) and negative in 93 patients (44.1%). Diagnostic prescan confidence according amyloid-PET results showed that in both, negative and positive-PET subgroup, the most frequent category was intermediate probability (45.7% and 55.1%, respectively). After the amyloid-PET, the diagnostic confidence showed a very different distribution, that was, in the negative-PET group the most frequent categories are very unlikely (70.7%) and unlikely (29.3%), while in the positive-PET group were very probable (57.6%) and practically sure (39%). Only in 14/211 patients (6.6%) the result of the amyloid-PET did not influence the diagnostic confidence, while in 194 patients (93.4%), the diagnostic confidence improved significantly after amyloid-PET results. The therapeutic intention was modified in 93 patients (44.1%). Specific treatment for Alzheimer disease was started, before amyloid-PET, in 80 patients (37.9%).This naturalistic study provides evidence that the implementation of amyloid-PET is associated with a significant improvement in diagnostic confidence and has a high impact on the therapeutic management of patients with mild cognitive impairment fulfilled clinical AUC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.