ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) remains difficult due to overlapping symptoms with other conditions. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of bvFTD clinical criteria and whether it has improved over time.
methodsWe systematically reviewed studies assessing the Lund-Manchester (1994), Neary (1998), and Rascovsky (2011) criteria, using pathology or follow-up diagnosis as reference standards. A Bayesian bivariate model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity.
resultsNine studies (1130 participants) were included. Sensitivity increased from 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.89; Lund-Manchester) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.48-0.95; Neary) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-0.95; Rascovsky, probable diagnosis), at the cost of a decreased specificity (0.94, 0.95, and 0.85, respectively). DISCUSSION: The diagnostic sensitivity of bvFTD criteria has improved over time, though specificity has declined. Ongoing refinement and biomarker development are needed to enhance diagnostic accuracy, especially in early disease stages.
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.