Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Alzheimer's Association clinical practice guideline for the Diagnostic Evaluation, Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure of Suspected Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (DETeCD-ADRD): Executive summary of recommendations for primary care
Atri A, Dickerson BC, Clevenger C, Karlawish J, Knopman D, Lin PJ, Norman M, Onyike C, Sano M, Scanland S, et al.. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2024-12-23
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence-based guideline was developed to empower all-including primary care-clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient-centered evaluation process. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high-quality, evidence-supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health-care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence-based guideline was developed to empower all-including primary care-clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high-quality, evidence-supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health-care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Atri, A., Dickerson, B. C., Clevenger, C., Karlawish, J., Knopman, D., Lin, P. J., et al. (2024). Alzheimer's Association clinical practice guideline for the Diagnostic Evaluation, Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure of Suspected Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (DETeCD-ADRD): Executive summary of recommendations for primary care. Alzheimer's & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14333
Vancouver
Atri A, Dickerson BC, Clevenger C, Karlawish J, Knopman D, Lin PJ, et al. Alzheimer's Association clinical practice guideline for the Diagnostic Evaluation, Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure of Suspected Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (DETeCD-ADRD): Executive summary of recommendations for primary care. Alzheimer's & Dementia. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.14333. PMID: 39713942.
BibTeX
@article{atri2024-39713942,
author = {Atri, A. and Dickerson, B. C. and Clevenger, C. and Karlawish, J. and Knopman, D. and Lin, P. J. and Norman, M. and Onyike, C. and Sano, M. and Scanland, S. and others},
title = {{Alzheimer's Association clinical practice guideline for the Diagnostic Evaluation, Testing, Counseling, and Disclosure of Suspected Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (DETeCD-ADRD): Executive summary of recommendations for primary care}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& Dementia},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.14333},
pmid = {39713942},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14333}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- If clinicians use this guideline and health-care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.
- Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists.
- This evidence-based guideline was developed to empower all-including primary care-clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD.
- This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high-quality, evidence-supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations.
- If clinicians use this guideline and health-care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.
Why it matters
This guideline aims to help all clinicians, including primary care, use a structured approach to evaluate patients with symptoms that may represent Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. The authors say that if clinicians use the guideline and health-care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designsystematic-review
- Evidence strengthHigh
Limitations
Consensus guideline rather than a study of outcomes; effectiveness depends on health systems providing adequate resources; US-focused.
How this study scored 70/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 69 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 68 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 17.0 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 18.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 7 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 68 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author María C. Carrillo: h-index 78 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 15 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39713942) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 69 / 98 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 69 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100. |
| Total | 70 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 56.
Later studies that cite this one
7 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also in Getting a diagnosis
141 studies in the library are filed under Getting a diagnosis with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Getting a diagnosis hub.