↓ Skip to main content

Assessing FDG-PET diagnostic accuracy studies to develop recommendations for clinical use in dementia

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Assessing FDG-PET diagnostic accuracy studies to develop recommendations for clinical use in dementia
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00259-018-4024-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Boccardi, Cristina Festari, Daniele Altomare, Federica Gandolfo, Stefania Orini, Flavio Nobili, Giovanni B. Frisoni, for the EANM-EAN Task Force for the Prescription of FDG-PET for Dementing Neurodegenerative Disorders

Abstract

FDG-PET is frequently used as a marker of synaptic damage to diagnose dementing neurodegenerative disorders. We aimed to adapt the items of evidence quality to FDG-PET diagnostic studies, and assess the evidence available in current literature to assist Delphi decisions for European recommendations for clinical use. Based on acknowledged methodological guidance, we defined the domains, specific to FDG-PET, required to assess the quality of evidence in 21 literature searches addressing as many Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) questions. We ranked findings for each PICO and fed experts making Delphi decisions for recommending clinical use. Among the 1435 retrieved studies, most lacked validated measures of test performance, an adequate gold standard, and head-to-head comparison of FDG-PET and clinical diagnosis, and only 58 entered detailed assessment. Only two studies assessed the accuracy of the comparator (clinical diagnosis) versus any kind of gold-/reference-standard. As to the index-test (FDG-PET-based diagnosis), an independent gold-standard was available in 24% of the examined papers; 38% used an acceptable reference-standard (clinical follow-up); and 38% compared FDG-PET-based diagnosis only to baseline clinical diagnosis. These methodological limitations did not allow for deriving recommendations from evidence. An incremental diagnostic value of FDG-PET versus clinical diagnosis or lack thereof cannot be derived from the current literature. Many of the observed limitations may easily be overcome, and we outlined them as research priorities to improve the quality of current evidence. Such improvement is necessary to outline evidence-based guidelines. The available data were anyway provided to expert clinicians who defined interim recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 41%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 13 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,417,774
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#174
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,576
of 326,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#3
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 326,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.