ArticleDer Nervenarzt2020
[Diagnostic procedures in patients with mild cognitive impairment and in patients with dementia].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- State-of-the-art of lumbar puncture and its place in the journey of patients with Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2022Review
- Safety and tolerability of lumbar puncture for the evaluation of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo manage the growing numbers of people with dementia (PwD) preventive strategies are becoming more important. Therefore, the diagnostics of patients with mild cognitive impairment (PwMCI) are gaining in importance. Little is known about the current use of diagnostics tests among PwMCI in routine healthcare. The aim of the study was to examine the prevalence of diagnostic methods in newly diagnosed PwMCI over time in comparison to PwD.
methodsThe study was based on the complete nationwide patient claims data of the panel doctor services according to §295 of the German social code book V (SGB V). The incidences of PwMCI and PwD in 2011 and 2016 were identified and the use of neuropsychiatric testing, neuroimaging with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), laboratory and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examinations was ascertained.
resultsIn 2016 the prevalence of neuroimaging as well as of laboratory examinations was higher in PwMCI compared to PwD (29% vs. 21% and 92% vs. 88%, respectively). There were only small differences in neuropsychiatric testing (70% vs. 72%). The prevalence of CSF examinations was very low in both groups (less than 1%). Between 2011 and 2016 the prevalence of neuroimaging decreased from 36% to 29% among PwMCI, while it remained constant at around 22% for PwD. The rates of neuropsychiatric testing increased over time in both PwMCI (from 49% to 70%) and PwD (from 36% to 72%). The prevalence of laboratory examinations remained unchanged.
conclusionThe use of specific diagnostic methods was higher in PwMCI than in PwD. Referring to the recommendations of practice guidelines, the increase in neuropsychiatric testing is regarded as a pleasing development, whereas the decrease in neuroimaging rates and the very low prevalence of CSF examinations require improvement.
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.