ArticleBMJ open2024
Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBehavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) characterisation has evolved, but diagnosis remains challenging, relying on clinical diagnostic criteria that have undergone revisions over time. In this systematic review, our aims are to evaluate the accuracy of clinical diagnostic criteria for bvFTD by comparing them against pathological diagnoses and determine potential improvement in performance over the years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 guidelines and is registered on PROSPERO. We will search four databases (MEDLINE-PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and LILACS) using tailored search terms on May 1st 2024. Inclusion criteria encompass peer-reviewed articles reporting diagnostic parameters or raw data regarding bvFTD clinical diagnosis based on well-defined criteria. Screening and selection of relevant articles will be independently performed by two reviewers using the Covidence systematic review manager. Discrepancies will be resolved by a third researcher. Pathologic and genetic diagnosis will be the main gold standard, but we will also consider refined diagnoses after a follow-up period. Data will be collected on study design, baseline demographics and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. Study quality will be assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. If possible, we will conduct a meta-analysis using bivariate random-effect models. Subgroup analyses will consider study settings, gold standards, disease stages and bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will not be needed because the data used in this systematic review will be extracted from published studies. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at relevant scientific conferences, potentially enhancing our understanding of bvFTD clinical diagnosis reliability and guiding future criteria refinements. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023389063.
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.