SynthesisAlzheimer's research & therapy2026
Are diagnostic technologies for alzheimer's disease and dementia cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations.
Synthesis in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia pose a significant clinical and economic burden globally. Early diagnosis and intervention can potentially delay disease progression. Current diagnostic guidelines recommend considering imaging and biomarker analysis in conjunction with clinical evaluation. Given limited healthcare resources, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies is critical to guide allocation of resources.
objectiveTo systematically review the economic evaluation studies of neuroimaging, biomarkers, and other diagnostic or screening strategies for diagnosing and/or tracking the progression of AD or dementia.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EconLit, and to identify relevant studies, with no restrictions on country, language, or publication period. Quality of the studies was evaluated using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-Extended (CHEC-Extended) checklist.
resultsOut of 6,804 records, 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. These included evaluations of neuroimaging technologies such as Positron Emission Tomography, Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (n = 10), cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers (n = 7), and alternative diagnostic strategies including screening programs, machine learning-based models, and multidisciplinary care approaches (n = 4). Among the studies evaluating imaging technologies, most (n = 6) did not find them to be cost-effective. In contrast, CSF and blood biomarker studies found these technologies to be cost-effective, with some variability in results. Methodological quality score ranged between 15% and 95%, indicating a mix of low- to high-quality studies. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and reported outcomes, direct comparisons were not feasible.
conclusionsWhile many studies were of high quality, heterogeneity in study objectives, design, and outcomes restricted evidence synthesis. Future research should ensure methodological consistency, transparent cost reporting, and integration of new treatment frameworks to improve the policy relevance and reliability of economic evidence for AD diagnostics.
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.