Home › Research › Biomarkers
Novel fluid biomarkers to differentiate frontotemporal dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review
Chaudhry A, Houlden H, Rizig M.. Journal of the neurological sciences, 2020-05-11
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Rationale Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are two common forms of neurodegenerative dementia, subsequent to Alzheimer's disease (AD). AD is the only dementia that includes clinically validated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in the diagnostic criteria. FTD and DLB often overlap with AD in their clinical and pathological features, making it challenging to differentiate between these conditions. Aim This systematic review aimed to identify if novel fluid biomarkers are useful in differentiating FTD and DLB from AD. Increasing the certainty of the differentiation between dementia subtypes would be advantageous clinically and in research. Methods PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies that quantified and assessed diagnostic accuracy of novel fluid biomarkers in clinically diagnosed patients with FTD or DLB, in comparison to patients with AD. Meta-analyses were performed on biomarkers that were quantified in 3 studies or more. Results The search strategy yielded 614 results, from which, 27 studies were included. When comparing bio-fluid levels in AD and FTD patients, neurofilament light chain (NfL) level was often higher in FTD, whilst brain soluble amyloid precursor protein β (sAPPβ) was higher in patients with AD. When comparing bio-fluid levels in AD and DLB patients, α-synuclein ensued heterogeneous findings, while the noradrenaline metabolite (MHPG) was found to be lower in DLB. Ratios of Aβ42/Aβ38 and Aβ42/Aβ40 were lower in AD than FTD and DLB and offered better diagnostic accuracy than raw amyloid-β (Aβ) concentrations. Conclusions Several promising novel biomarkers were highlighted in this review. Combinations of fluid biomarkers were more often useful than individual biomarkers in distinguishing subtypes of dementia. Considering the heterogeneity in methods and results between the studies, further validation, ideally with longitudinal prospective designs with large sample sizes and unified protocols, are fundamental before conclusions can be finalised.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chaudhry, A., Houlden, H., & Rizig, M. (2020). Novel fluid biomarkers to differentiate frontotemporal dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review. Journal of the neurological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2020.116886
Vancouver
Chaudhry A, Houlden H, Rizig M. Novel fluid biomarkers to differentiate frontotemporal dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2020.116886. PMID: 32428759.
BibTeX
@article{chaudhry2020-32428759,
author = {Chaudhry, A. and Houlden, H. and Rizig, M.},
title = {{Novel fluid biomarkers to differentiate frontotemporal dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review}},
journal = {Journal of the neurological sciences},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/j.jns.2020.116886},
pmid = {32428759},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2020.116886}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The search strategy yielded 614 results, from which, 27 studies were included.
- Considering the heterogeneity in methods and results between the studies, further validation, ideally with longitudinal prospective designs with large sample sizes and unified protocols, are fundamental before conclusions can be finalised.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the neurological sciences) |
| 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 | 2020 — 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 32428759) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “fluid-biomarkers”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “fluid-biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.