Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 460

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Report of the second dementia with Lewy body international workshop: Diagnosis and treatment

McKeith, I.G., Perry, E.K., Perry, R.H.·1999·Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The second International Workshop of the Consortium on Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) met to review developments since publication of consensus guidelines for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB in 1996. The specificity of a clinical diagnosis of probable DLB, made using consensus criteria, is generally high (>85%), but sensitivity of case detection is lower and more variable. Inter-rater reliability for the core clinical features-recurrent visual hallucinations and spontaneous motor features of parkinsonism-is acceptable, but reliable identification of fluctuating cognition remains problematic. Depression and REM sleep behavior disorder may be additional features supportive of a diagnosis of DLB that were not included in the original guideline. RESULTS: It is recommended that the clinical consensus criteria continue to be used in their current format with research efforts focused on increasing sensitivity of case detection. Antiubiquitin immunocytochemistry is the method of choice for routine detection of Lewy bodies for diagnostic purposes in research and clinical practice. The use of alpha-synuclein antibodies to label Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites represents a major methodologic advance since the first DLB workshop. alpha-Synuclein-based methods are likely to be most useful in research laboratories, particularly for clinicopathologic correlative studies. CONCLUSION: Clinical management of DLB patients usually centers on the treatment of noncognitive features. There is now a pressing need to establish appropriately designed randomized controlled trials in DLB. Collaboration between dementia and movement disorder specialists is essential for rapid progress in research and clinical management protocols.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.53.5.902

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 460

Metadata

Authors
McKeith, I. G., Perry, E. K., & Perry, R. H.
Venue
Neurology
Published
1999-09
Volume
53
Issue
5
Pages
902-902
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2108410348
Cited by
460
References
3
FWCI
20.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Report of the second dementia with Lewy body international workshop: Diagnosis and treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.53.5.902
The paper
McKeith, I. G., Perry, E. K., & Perry, R. H. (1999). Report of the second dementia with Lewy body international workshop: Diagnosis and treatment. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.53.5.902

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.