SynthesisBMJ open2026
Utilisation of brain MRI for the diagnosis of dementia in low and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Towards a Multidimensional Model of Neurocognitive Disorders (MOND Model): Integrating Evidence from a Critical Review into a Model for Future Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesise the prevalence and patterns of dementia-relevant structural brain MRI abnormalities in adults with suspected or confirmed dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to summarise MRI protocols and the incremental diagnostic contribution of MRI beyond cognitive screening.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO (January 1990-27 January 2025), plus reference list screening and targeted manual searches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational or diagnostic-accuracy studies from World Bank-defined LMICs including adults (≥50 years) with suspected or confirmed dementia who underwent brain MRI as part of diagnostic evaluation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Random-effects models pooled prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities; diagnostic-accuracy outcomes were synthesised narratively due to heterogeneous reference standards and incomplete reporting.
results39 LMIC studies were included; 23 studies (2513 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities (defined as ≥1 clinically relevant structural abnormality per study definition) were present in 1248/2513 participants. The pooled prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities was 58% (95% CI 43% to 72%), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=95%) and a wide prediction interval (8-96%), indicating marked between-study variability; this estimate should be interpreted as a descriptive summary of study-level proportions rather than a precise population parameter.
conclusionsBrain MRI frequently demonstrates dementia-relevant pathology in LMIC clinical cohorts, usually with mixed neurodegenerative-vascular patterns. Structured visual ratings may add aetiologic specificity beyond cognitive screening, but pooled estimates should be interpreted as summaries of heterogeneous study-level findings rather than precise population parameters, given high heterogeneity and risk of bias. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024510241.
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.