Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma Aβ as a biomarker for predicting Aβ-PET status in Alzheimer's disease：a systematic review with meta-analysis
Cheng L, Li W, Chen Y, Lin Y, Wang B, Guo Q, Miao Y.. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2022-03-03
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objective Amyloid-β positron emission tomography (Aβ-PET) scan has been proposed to detect amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition in the brain. However, this approach is costly and not ideal for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Blood-based Aβ measurement offers a scalable alternative to the costly or invasive biomarkers. The aim of this study was to statistically validate whether plasma Aβ could predict Aβ-PET status via meta-analysis. Methods We systematically searched for eligible studies from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, which reported plasma Aβ levels of amyloid-β positron emission tomography-positive (PET (+)) and amyloid-β positron emission tomography-negative (PET (-)) subjects. We generated pooled estimates using random effects meta-analyses. For any study that has significant heterogeneity, metaregression and subgroup analysis were further conducted. Publication bias was appraised by funnel plots and Egger's test. Results 16 studies with 3047 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Among all the enrolled studies, 10 studies reported plasma Aβ40 values, while 9 studies reported plasma Aβ42 values and 13 studies reported Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. The pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.76 (95% CI -0.61 to 2.14, p=0.28) in the plasma Aβ40 values group. Plasma Aβ42 values group has a pooled SMD of -0.60 (95% CI -0.80 to -0.41, p<0.0001). In the plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio group, the pooled SMD was -1.44 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.72, p<0.0001). Conclusion Plasma Aβ40 values might not distinguish between PET (+) and PET (-) people. However, plasma Aβ42 values and plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio could be served as independent biomarkers for predicting Aβ-PET status.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cheng, L., Li, W., Chen, Y., Lin, Y., Wang, B., Guo, Q., et al. (2022). Plasma Aβ as a biomarker for predicting Aβ-PET status in Alzheimer's disease：a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2021-327864
Vancouver
Cheng L, Li W, Chen Y, Lin Y, Wang B, Guo Q, et al. Plasma Aβ as a biomarker for predicting Aβ-PET status in Alzheimer's disease：a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2022. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2021-327864. PMID: 35241627.
BibTeX
@article{cheng2022-35241627,
author = {Cheng, L. and Li, W. and Chen, Y. and Lin, Y. and Wang, B. and Guo, Q. and Miao, Y.},
title = {{Plasma Aβ as a biomarker for predicting Aβ-PET status in Alzheimer's disease：a systematic review with meta-analysis}},
journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1136/jnnp-2021-327864},
pmid = {35241627},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2021-327864}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- For any study that has significant heterogeneity, metaregression and subgroup analysis were further conducted.
- Results 16 studies with 3047 participants were included in the meta-analysis.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants3,047
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 81 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 3,047 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35241627) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 47 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 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.