Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Appropriate use criteria for lumbar puncture and cerebrospinal fluid testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease
Shaw LM, Arias J, Blennow K, Galasko D, Molinuevo JL, Salloway S, Schindler S, Carrillo MC et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2018-10-10
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction The Alzheimer's Association convened a multidisciplinary workgroup to develop appropriate use criteria to guide the safe and optimal use of the lumbar puncture procedure and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing for Alzheimer's disease pathology detection in the diagnostic process. Methods The workgroup, experienced in the ethical use of lumbar puncture and CSF analysis, developed key research questions to guide the systematic review of the evidence and developed clinical indications commonly encountered in clinical practice based on key patient groups in whom the use of lumbar puncture and CSF may be considered as part of the diagnostic process. Based on their expertise and interpretation of the evidence from systematic review, members rated each indication as appropriate or inappropriate. Results The workgroup finalized 14 indications, rating 6 appropriate and 8 inappropriate. Discussion In anticipation of the emergence of more reliable CSF analysis platforms, the manuscript offers important guidance to health-care practitioners and suggestions for implementation and future research.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Shaw, L. M., Arias, J., Blennow, K., Galasko, D., Molinuevo, J. L., Salloway, S., et al. (2018). Appropriate use criteria for lumbar puncture and cerebrospinal fluid testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.07.220
Vancouver
Shaw LM, Arias J, Blennow K, Galasko D, Molinuevo JL, Salloway S, et al. Appropriate use criteria for lumbar puncture and cerebrospinal fluid testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.07.220. PMID: 30316776.
BibTeX
@article{shaw2018-30316776,
author = {Shaw, L. M. and Arias, J. and Blennow, K. and Galasko, D. and Molinuevo, J. L. and Salloway, S. and Schindler, S. and Carrillo, M. C. and others},
title = {{Appropriate use criteria for lumbar puncture and cerebrospinal fluid testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2018.07.220},
pmid = {30316776},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.07.220}
}
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
- Results The workgroup finalized 14 indications, rating 6 appropriate and 8 inappropriate.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
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 journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 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 | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30316776) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Tau biomarkers
Also tagged “appropriate”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “appropriate”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.