Home › Research › Biomarkers
CSF biomarkers for dementia
Ashvini Keshavan, Frankie O'Shea, Miles D Chapman, Melanie S Hart, Michael Pt Lunn, Ross W Paterson, Jonathan D Rohrer, Catherine J Mummery et al.. Practical neurology, 2022-03-17
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Although cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker testing is incorporated into some current guidelines for the diagnosis of dementia (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)), it is not widely accessible for most patients for whom biomarkers could potentially change management. Here we share our experience of running a clinical cognitive CSF service and discuss recent developments in laboratory testing including the use of the CSF amyloid-β 42/40 ratio and automated assay platforms. We highlight the importance of collaborative working between clinicians and laboratory staff, of preanalytical sample handling, and discuss the various factors influencing interpretation of the results in appropriate clinical contexts. We advocate for broadening access to CSF biomarkers by sharing clinical expertise, protocols and interpretation with colleagues working in psychiatry and elderly care, especially when access to CSF may be part of a pathway to disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.
Key findings
- We highlight the importance of collaborative working between clinicians and laboratory staff, of preanalytical sample handling, and discuss the various factors influencing interpretation of the results in appropriate clinical contexts.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Practical neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 35301255) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Keshavan, A., O'Shea, F., Chapman, M. D., Hart, M. S., Lunn, M. P., Paterson, R. W., et al. (2022). CSF biomarkers for dementia. Practical neurology. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2021-003310
Vancouver
Keshavan A, O'Shea F, Chapman MD, Hart MS, Lunn MP, Paterson RW, et al. CSF biomarkers for dementia. Practical neurology. 2022. doi:10.1136/practneurol-2021-003310. PMID: 35301255.
BibTeX
@article{keshavan2022-35301255,
author = {Keshavan, Ashvini and O'Shea, Frankie and Chapman, Miles D and Hart, Melanie S and Lunn, Michael Pt and Paterson, Ross W and Rohrer, Jonathan D and Mummery, Catherine J and others},
title = {{CSF biomarkers for dementia}},
journal = {Practical neurology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1136/practneurol-2021-003310},
pmid = {35301255},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2021-003310}
}
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “blood-based”
698 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 698 tagged studies.