Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30010119›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2018

18F-FDG PET for Prediction of Conversion to Alzheimer's Disease Dementia in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Updated Systematic Review of Test Accuracy.

Nadja Smailagic, Louise Lafortune, Sarah Kelly, Chris Hyde, Carol Brayne

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Slowed Driving Reaction Time in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Radiology advances · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Generation of ConventionalMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Introducing a gatekeeping system for amyloid status assessment in mild cognitive impairment.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nadja SmailagicCambridge Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Louise LafortuneCambridge Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah KellyCambridge Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Chris HydeExeter Test Group and South West CLAHRC, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.
Carol BrayneCambridge Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA previous Cochrane systematic review concluded there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of 18F-FDG PET in clinical practice in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

objectivesTo update the evidence and reassess the accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET for detecting people with MCI at baseline who would clinically convert to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia at follow-up.

methodsA systematic review including comprehensive search of electronic databases from January 2013 to July 2017, to update original searches (1999 to 2013). All key review steps, including quality assessment using QUADAS 2, were performed independently and blindly by two review authors. Meta-analysis could not be conducted due to heterogeneity across studies.

resultsWhen all included studies were examined across all semi-quantitative and quantitative metrics, exploratory analysis for conversion of MCI to AD dementia (n = 24) showed highly variable accuracy; half the studies failed to meet four or more of the seven sets of QUADAS 2 criteria. Variable accuracy for all metrics was also found across eleven newly included studies published in the last 5 years (range: sensitivity 56-100%, specificity 24-100%). The most consistently high sensitivity and specificity values (approximately ≥80%) were reported for the sc-SPM (single case statistical parametric mapping) metric in 6 out of 8 studies.

conclusionSystematic and comprehensive assessment of studies of 18FDG-PET for prediction of conversion from MCI to AD dementia reveals many studies have methodological limitations according to Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy gold standards, and shows accuracy remains highly variable, including in the most recent studies. There is some evidence, however, of higher and more consistent accuracy in studies using computer aided metrics, such as sc-SPM, in specialized clinical settings. Robust, methodologically sound prospective longitudinal cohort studies with long (≥5 years) follow-up, larger consecutive samples, and defined baseline threshold(s) are needed to test these promising results. Further evidence of the clinical validity and utility of 18F-FDG PET in people with MCI is needed.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionPositron-Emission TomographyAlzheimer DiseaseBrainCognitive DysfunctionFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansNeuropsychological TestsFluorodeoxyglucose F1818F-FDG PETAccuracyAlzheimer’s disease dementiaconversionmild cognitive impairmenttest predictive value

Identifiers

PMID30010119
PMCPMC6218118

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.