ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026
Diagnosis and management of subjects with mild cognitive impairment in clinical practice: an Italian delphi consensus study.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is increasing worldwide, while the scarce evidence regarding clinical practice requires real-life research and consensus. This study examined real-life practices regarding the diagnosis and management of subjects with MCI in Italy.
methodsData were collected from a modified Delphi study conducted in April-December 2023. The study involved 12 advisors and 16 specialists working in Italian Memory Clinics. The 50 statements proposed by the 12 advisors were rated on a 1–6 Likert scale in a two-round survey. Consensus was a priori defined when the rates of each statement in each round reached a mean value ≥ 5. The ratings of each statement were collected using an Excel spreadsheet. The data were analysed using Microsoft Excel and expressed as mean, median, and standard deviation (SD).
resultsThe response rate was 100% for both voting rounds. In the first round, 40 statements reached a consensus, while 8 did in the second. The SD of the eight final statements in the first round of voting ranged from 0.91 to 1.74, and that of the second round from 0.57 to 1.71.
conclusionsThis consensus study emphasized the need to standardize investigations, set cut-off thresholds, and establish quantitative reporting standards. Building on this, the study recommended combining biomarker studies to stratify risks and predict decline. Furthermore, it advised integrating genetic data into risk algorithms and increasing testing and clinical criteria. Additionally, the consensus valued promoting specialized and integrative training, while fostering structured relationships with general practitioners.
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.