Cited by 38Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus

Assessment of CSF Aβ42 as an aid to discriminating Alzheimer's disease from other dementias and mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis of 50 studies

Tang, Wei, Huang, Qiong, Wang, Yan, Wang, Zheng-Yu, Yao, Yu-You·2014·Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Abstract

Mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) is usually difficult to differentiate from other dementias or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The aim of our study is to evaluate the clinical importance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) β-amyloid 42 (Aβ42) in MCI, AD and other dementias, more specifically: frontotemporal dementia (FTD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson's disease (PD) with dementia (PDD) and vascular dementia (VaD). Fifty eligible articles were identified by search of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Elsevier, Springer Link and the Cochrane Library, from January 1990 to May 2014. The random effects model was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% CI by STATA 9.0 software. The subgroup analyses were made on the method (ELISA, xMAP). We found that CSF Aβ42 concentrations were significantly lower in AD compared to MCI (SMD: -0.68, 95% CI: [-0.80, -0.56], z=11.34, P<0.001), FTD (SMD: -1.09, 95% CI: [-1.41, -0.76], z=6.62, P<0.001), PDD (SMD: -0.75, 95% CI: [-1.39, -0.10], z=2.27, P=0.023), VaD (SMD: -0.95, 95% CI: [-1.30, -0.61], z=5.43, P<0.001). In addition, compared to DLB, Aβ42 concentrations are moderately lower in AD (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: [-0.51, -0.03], z=2.20, P=0.028). Results from this meta-analysis hinted that CSF Aβ42 is a good biomarker for discriminating Alzheimer's disease from other dementias and MCI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jns.2014.07.015

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, W., Huang, Q., Wang, Y., Wang, Z.-Y., & Yao, Y.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Anhui Medical University (CN)
  • Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (CN)
Venue
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
345
Issue
1-2
Pages
26-36
ISSN
0022-510X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068072654
Cited by
38
References
73
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Neurological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (1208085MH145)
  • Department of Anhui Province Education (KJ2011Z161)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Keywords
cerebrospinal fluid, amyloid-beta 42, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia, vascular dementia, biomarkers, differential diagnosis
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Dementia, Humans, Peptide Fragments, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review