SynthesisEuropean radiology2021
Diagnostic performance of the medial temporal lobe atrophy scale in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- The associations between ATN biomarkers and episodic memory diminish as age increases.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- A real-world decision tree model based on ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT Z scores and Mini-Mental State Examination for differentiating mild cognitive impairment from clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Radiomics models identifying dementia in patients with normal age-related hippocampal atrophy: a study based on machine learning.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Real-world application of lecanemab in early-stage alzheimer's disease: a single-center prospective cohort analysis.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2025Article
- Congruency between publicly available pictorial displays of medial temporal lobe atrophy.European radiology · 2025Article
- A visual scale to rate amygdalar atrophy on MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- Longitudinal automated brain volumetry versus expert visual assessment of atrophy progression on MRI: an exploratory study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Limited utility of imaging-based (N) markers in predicting cerebral spinal fluid Alzheimer's disease biomarker positivity in lecanemab-eligible mild cognitive impairment.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Differences in Grey Matter Concentrations and Functional Connectivity between Young Carriers and Non-Carriers of the APOE ε4 Genotype.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Daytime Sleepiness, Apnea, Neuroimaging Correlates and Cortisol Dysregulation in a Memory Clinic Cohort.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2024Article
- Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease in Clinical Practice: Time to Incorporate Biomarkers?Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
- Automated free speech analysis reveals distinct markers of Alzheimer's and frontotemporal dementia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Visual atrophy rating scales and amyloid PET status in an Alzheimer's disease clinical cohort.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2023Review
- [Brain MRI-Based Artificial Intelligence Software in Patients with Neurodegenerative Diseases: Current Status].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2022Review
- Associations of multiple visual rating scales based on structural magnetic resonance imaging with disease severity and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in patients with Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- The MTA score-simple and reliable, the best for now?European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance and reliability of the medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scale in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
methodsA systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed to select studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance or reliability of MTA scale, published up to January 21, 2021. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Pooled correlation coefficients for intra- and interobserver agreements were calculated using the random-effects model based on Fisher's Z transformation of correlations. Meta-regression was performed to explain the study heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic performance of the MTA scale and hippocampal volumetry.
resultsTwenty-one original articles were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the MTA scale in differentiating Alzheimer's disease from healthy control were 74% (95% CI, 68-79%) and 88% (95% CI, 83-91%), respectively. The area under the curve of the MTA scale was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90). Meta-regression demonstrated that the difference in the method of rating the MTA scale was significantly associated with study heterogeneity (p = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in five studies regarding the diagnostic performance between MTA scale and hippocampal volumetry (p = 0.40). The pooled correlation coefficients for intra- and interobserver agreements were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.69-0.93) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.66-0.92), respectively.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrated a good diagnostic performance and reliability of the MTA scale in Alzheimer's disease. KEY POINTS: • The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the MTA scale in differentiating Alzheimer's disease from healthy control were 74% and 88%, respectively. • There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance between MTA scale and hippocampal volumetry. • The reliability of MTA scale was excellent based on the pooled correlation coefficient for intra- and interobserver agreements.
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.