| Title |
Impact of cerebro-spinal fluid biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice: a multicentric study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-013-7160-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
François Mouton-Liger, David Wallon, Anne-Cécile Troussière, Rachida Yatimi, Julien Dumurgier, Eloi Magnin, Vincent de la Sayette, Emannuelle Duron, Nathalie Philippi, Emilie Beaufils, Audrey Gabelle, Bernard Croisile, Philippe Robert, Florence Pasquier, Didier Hannequin, Jacques Hugon, Claire Paquet |
| Abstract |
CSF biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease are well validated in clinical research; however, their pragmatic utility in daily practice is still unappreciated. These biomarkers are used in routine practice according to Health Authority Recommendations. In 604 consecutive patients explored for cognitive disorders, questionnaires were prospectively proposed and filled. Before and after CSF biomarker results, clinicians provided a diagnosis and an estimate of their diagnostic confidence. Analysis has compared the frequency of diagnosis before and after CSF biomarker results using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) method. We have evaluated external validity comparing with data of French Bank National of AD (BNA). A total of 561 patients [Alzheimer's disease (AD), n = 253; non-AD, n = 308] were included (mean age, 68.6 years; women, 52 %). Clinically suspected diagnosis and CSF results were concordant in 65.2 % of cases. When clinical hypothesis and biological results were discordant, a reclassification occurred in favour of CSF biomarkers results in 76.9 %. The NRI was 39.5 %. In addition, the results show a statistically significant improvement in clinician confidence for their diagnosis. In comparison with BNA data, patients were younger and more frequently diagnosed with AD. Clinicians tend to heavily rely on the CSF AD biomarkers results and are more confident in their diagnoses using CSF AD biomarkers. Thus, these biomarkers appear as a key tool in clinical practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 25% |
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Psychology | 5 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2013.
All research outputs
#5,852,394
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,414
of 4,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,460
of 212,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#12
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.