Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33566374›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid ABeta42 for the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia in participants diagnosed with any dementia subtype in a specialist care setting.

Michelle Kokkinou, Lucy C Beishon, Nadja Smailagic, Anna H Noel-Storr, Chris Hyde, Obioha Ukoumunne, Rosemary E Worrall, Anja Hayen, Meera Desai, Abhishekh Hulegar Ashok and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of testing biofluid biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Alcohol Use Disorder and Dementia: A Review.Alcohol research : current reviews · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Michelle KokkinouMRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Lucy C BeishonDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Nadja SmailagicInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.
Anna H Noel-StorrRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK.
Chris HydeExeter Test Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter , UK.
Obioha UkoumunneNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Rosemary E WorrallUniversity of Oxford Medical School, Oxford, UK.
Anja HayenDepartment of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Meera DesaiDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abhishekh Hulegar AshokMRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Eleanor J PaulMRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Aikaterini GeorgopoulouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Tiziana CasoliCenter for Neurobiology of Aging, IRCCS INRCA, Ancona, Italy.
Terry J QuinnInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Craig W RitchieCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Oxford · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBIstituto Nazionale di Riposo e Cura per Anziani · ITMRC London Institute of Medical Sciences · GBNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Reading · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia is a syndrome that comprises many differing pathologies, including Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD), vascular dementia (VaD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). People may benefit from knowing the type of dementia they live with, as this could inform prognosis and may allow for tailored treatment. Beta-amyloid (1-42) (ABeta42) is a protein which decreases in both the plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of people living with ADD, when compared to people with no dementia. However, it is not clear if changes in ABeta42 are specific to ADD or if they are also seen in other types of dementia. It is possible that ABeta42 could help differentiate ADD from other dementia subtypes.

objectivesTo determine the accuracy of plasma and CSF ABeta42 for distinguishing ADD from other dementia subtypes in people who meet the criteria for a dementia syndrome. SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, and nine other databases up to 18 February 2020. We checked reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered cross-sectional studies that differentiated people with ADD from other dementia subtypes. Eligible studies required measurement of participant plasma or CSF ABeta42 levels and clinical assessment for dementia subtype. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven review authors working independently screened the titles and abstracts generated by the searches. We collected data on study characteristics and test accuracy. We used the second version of the 'Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies' (QUADAS-2) tool to assess internal and external validity of results. We extracted data into 2 x 2 tables, cross-tabulating index test results (ABeta42) with the reference standard (diagnostic criteria for each dementia subtype). We performed meta-analyses using bivariate, random-effects models. We calculated pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the primary analysis, we assessed accuracy of plasma or CSF ABeta42 for distinguishing ADD from other mixed dementia types (non-ADD). We then assessed accuracy of ABeta42 for differentiating ADD from specific dementia types: VaD, FTD, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), alcohol-related cognitive disorder (ARCD), Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). To determine test-positive cases, we used the ABeta42 thresholds employed in the respective primary studies. We then performed sensitivity analyses restricted to those studies that used common thresholds for ABeta42. MAIN

resultsWe identified 39 studies (5000 participants) that used CSF ABeta42 levels to differentiate ADD from other subtypes of dementia. No studies of plasma ABeta42 met the inclusion criteria. No studies were rated as low risk of bias across all QUADAS-2 domains. High risk of bias was found predominantly in the domains of patient selection (28 studies) and index test (25 studies). The pooled estimates for differentiating ADD from other dementia subtypes were as follows: ADD from non-ADD: sensitivity 79% (95% CI 0.73 to 0.85), specificity 60% (95% CI 0.52 to 0.67), 13 studies, 1704 participants, 880 participants with ADD; ADD from VaD: sensitivity 79% (95% CI 0.75 to 0.83), specificity 69% (95% CI 0.55 to 0.81), 11 studies, 1151 participants, 941 participants with ADD; ADD from FTD: sensitivity 85% (95% CI 0.79 to 0.89), specificity 72% (95% CI 0.55 to 0.84), 17 studies, 1948 participants, 1371 participants with ADD; ADD from DLB: sensitivity 76% (95% CI 0.69 to 0.82), specificity 67% (95% CI 0.52 to 0.79), nine studies, 1929 participants, 1521 participants with ADD. Across all dementia subtypes, sensitivity was greater than specificity, and the balance of sensitivity and specificity was dependent on the threshold used to define test positivity. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOur review indicates that measuring ABeta42 levels in CSF may help differentiate ADD from other dementia subtypes, but the test is imperfect and tends to misdiagnose those with non-ADD as having ADD. We would caution against the use of CSF ABeta42 alone for dementia classification. However, ABeta42 may have value as an adjunct to a full clinical assessment, to aid dementia diagnosis.

Indexed as

AlcoholismAlzheimer DiseaseAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiasBiomarkersCognitive DysfunctionConfidence IntervalsCreutzfeldt-Jakob SyndromeDementia, VascularDiagnosis, DifferentialFrontotemporal DementiaHumansHydrocephalus, Normal PressureLewy Body DiseaseLikelihood FunctionsPeptide FragmentsAmyloid beta-Peptidesamyloid beta-protein (1-42)BiomarkersPeptide Fragments

Identifiers

PMID33566374
PMCPMC8078224
OpenAlexW1556668683

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.