This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

Amyloid positron emission tomography ([18F] florbetaben (FBB) PET) can be used to determine concomitant Alzheimer's disease (AD) in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) patients. FBB PET scans and the tap test were performed in 31 patients with clinically suspected iNPH, and amyloid positive (iNPH/FBB+) and negative (iNPH/FBB-) groups were compared with respect to clinical characteristics. We evaluated prognostic value of FBB PET scans by analyzing the response to the tap test using a linear mixed model. We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to investigate whether amyloid PET positivity can predict the positive tap test response independent of other AD biomarkers. The results showed that the iNPH/FBB+ group (7/31, 22.6%) had a higher percentage of APOE4 carriers, lower Aβ42, higher CSF t-tau, and p-tau/Aβ42 ratio than the iNPH/FBB- group (24/31, 77.4%), while the two groups did not differ in imaging characteristics. The iNPH/FBB- group had a higher percentage of tap responders and showed a greater improvement in gait scores after the tap test than the iNPH/FBB+ group (group-tap test effect interaction, p = 0.035). A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that amyloid positivity on PET scans (OR 0.03, p = 0.029) and CSF p-tau (OR 0.87, p = 0.044) were independently associated with the positive tap test response. Among 21 tap responders in the iNPH/FBB- group, 14 patients received shunt surgery and 12/14 (85.7%) patients showed symptom improvement. Our findings suggest that amyloid PET scans can help determine which iNPH patients will benefit from shunt surgery by discriminating concomitant AD.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Jang, H., Park, S. B., Kim, Y., Kim, K. W., Lee, J. I., Kim, S. T., et al. (2018). Prognostic value of amyloid PET scan in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-017-8650-5

Vancouver

Jang H, Park SB, Kim Y, Kim KW, Lee JI, Kim ST, et al. Prognostic value of amyloid PET scan in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Journal of neurology. 2018. doi:10.1007/s00415-017-8650-5. PMID: 29128930.

BibTeX

@article{jang2018-29128930,
  author  = {Jang, Hyemin and Park, Seong Beom and Kim, Yeshin and Kim, Ko Woon and Lee, Jung Il and Kim, Sung Tae and Lee, Kyung Han and Kang, Eun-Suk and others},
  title   = {{Prognostic value of amyloid PET scan in normal pressure hydrocephalus}},
  journal = {Journal of neurology},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1007/s00415-017-8650-5},
  pmid    = {29128930},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-017-8650-5}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 31 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “22.6%; 77.4%; OR 0.03”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

FBB PET scans and the tap test were performed in 31 patients with clinically suspected iNPH, and amyloid positive (iNPH/FBB+) and negative (iNPH/FBB-) groups were compared with respect to clinical characteristics.
The results showed that the iNPH/FBB+ group (7/31, 22.6%) had a higher percentage of APOE4 carriers, lower Aβ42, higher CSF t-tau, and p-tau/Aβ42 ratio than the iNPH/FBB- group (24/31, 77.4%), while the two groups did not differ in imaging characteristics.
A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that amyloid positivity on PET scans (OR 0.03, p = 0.029) and CSF p-tau (OR 0.87, p = 0.044) were independently associated with the positive tap test response.
Our findings suggest that amyloid PET scans can help determine which iNPH patients will benefit from shunt surgery by discriminating concomitant AD.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →

Study details

Participants31
Effect size22.6%; 77.4%; OR 0.03
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of 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	2 / 5	2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	31 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29128930)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	29 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total	52 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging from nearby years

Also tagged “18f”

318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →