ArticleFamily practice2025
The role of general practitioners in dementia diagnosis: a scoping review of clinical practice guidelines.
Article in Family practice, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTimely diagnosis of dementia is a public health priority, with general practitioners (GPs) central to symptom recognition and assessment. The emergence of biomarkers and anti-amyloid therapies makes accurate, timely diagnosis more critical than ever, introducing new complexities for general practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are vital tools to support clinical decision-making, but their applicability to the general practice setting is uncertain.
objectivesThis scoping review analyses how international CPGs define and support the GP's role in the dementia diagnostic process.
methodsFollowing the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework, five electronic databases and multiple grey literature sources were searched for dementia CPGs published between 2019 and 2025. Guideline quality was assessed using selected domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II instrument (AGREE II).
resultsFifteen CPGs from a range of healthcare systems were included. Only two were specifically developed for general practice. While most CPGs positioned GPs as key to timely diagnosis, the recommendations were predominantly developed from a secondary-care perspective and failed to address the fundamental barrier of limited consultation time. Furthermore, practical guidance for GPs on integrating new biomarkers and anti-amyloid therapies was almost absent.
conclusionsA disconnect exists between CPG recommendations and the realities of general practice, rendering much of the guidance aspirational rather than actionable. To be effective, future guidelines must ensure recommendations are feasible, address resource constraints, and establish clear pathways for the new biological era of dementia care. Without this, general practice will remain ill-equipped to meet the growing challenges of dementia diagnosis and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.