↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of 18F amyloid PET tracers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, November 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
294 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of 18F amyloid PET tracers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00259-015-3228-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Morris, Anastasia Chalkidou, Alexander Hammers, Janet Peacock, Jennifer Summers, Stephen Keevil

Abstract

Imaging or tissue biomarker evidence has been introduced into the core diagnostic pathway for Alzheimer's disease (AD). PET using (18)F-labelled beta-amyloid PET tracers has shown promise for the early diagnosis of AD. However, most studies included only small numbers of participants and no consensus has been reached as to which radiotracer has the highest diagnostic accuracy. First, we performed a systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2014 for studies exploring the diagnostic accuracy of florbetaben, florbetapir and flutemetamol in AD. The included studies were analysed using the QUADAS assessment of methodological quality. A meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity reported within each study was performed. Pooled values were calculated for each radiotracer and for visual or quantitative analysis by population included. The systematic review identified nine studies eligible for inclusion. There were limited variations in the methods between studies reporting the same radiotracer. The meta-analysis results showed that pooled sensitivity and specificity values were in general high for all tracers. This was confirmed by calculating likelihood ratios. A patient with a positive ratio is much more likely to have AD than a patient with a negative ratio, and vice versa. However, specificity was higher when only patients with AD were compared with healthy controls. This systematic review and meta-analysis found no marked differences in the diagnostic accuracy of the three beta-amyloid radiotracers. All tracers perform better when used to discriminate between patients with AD and healthy controls. The sensitivity and specificity for quantitative and visual analysis are comparable to those of other imaging or biomarker techniques used to diagnose AD. Further research is required to identify the combination of tests that provides the highest sensitivity and specificity, and to identify the most suitable position for the tracer in the clinical pathway.

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 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 287 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 15%
Researcher 37 13%
Other 36 12%
Student > Master 26 9%
Student > Bachelor 24 8%
Other 60 20%
Unknown 66 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 24%
Neuroscience 45 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Psychology 13 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 81 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,299,955
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#333
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,953
of 391,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#4
of 54 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 85th 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 well, scoring higher than 88% 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 391,841 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.