TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Rizzo, Giovanni
AU - Arcuti, Simona
AU - Copetti, Massimiliano
AU - Alessandria, Maria
AU - Savica, Rodolfo
AU - Fontana, Andrea
AU - Liguori, Rocco
AU - Logroscino, Giancarlo
N1 - Ricercatori distaccati presso IRCCS a seguito Convenzione esclusiva con Università di Bologna (Giovanni Rizzo, Liguori Rocco)
PY - 2017/10/13
Y1 - 2017/10/13
N2 - BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is based on diagnostic clinical criteria, which were updated over the years.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, through a systematic review, accuracy of the diagnostic criteria, testing a possible improvement over time.METHODS: We searched on MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases for studies reporting diagnostic parameters regarding the clinical diagnosis of DLB until October 2016. We performed meta-analysis, using a Bayesian approach, on those using pathological examination as gold standard, subclassified based on the different diagnostic criteria used.RESULTS: We selected 22 studies on 1585 patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 60.2%, 93.8%, 79.7%, respectively, for criteria antecedents to McKeith 1996. For McKeith 1996-possible, pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 65.6%, 80.6%, 77.9% in early stages and 72.3%, 64.3%, 66% in late stages, respectively. For McKeith 1996-probable, pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 19.4%, 95.1%, 77.7% in early stages and 48.6%, 88%, 79.2% in late stages, respectively. McKeith criteria 2005 were evaluated only in late stages: pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91.3%, 66.7% and 81.6%, respectively, for possible diagnosis (only one study) and 88.3%, 80.8%, 90.7% for probable diagnosis, decreasing to 85.6%, 77.1% and 81.7% if only considering clinical settings focused on dementia diagnosis and care.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Diagnostic criteria have become more sensitive and less specific over time, without substantial change in the accuracy. Based on current data, about 20% of DLB diagnosis are incorrect. Future studies are needed to evaluate if the recently released revised consensus criteria will improve the diagnostic accuracy of DLB.
AB - BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is based on diagnostic clinical criteria, which were updated over the years.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, through a systematic review, accuracy of the diagnostic criteria, testing a possible improvement over time.METHODS: We searched on MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases for studies reporting diagnostic parameters regarding the clinical diagnosis of DLB until October 2016. We performed meta-analysis, using a Bayesian approach, on those using pathological examination as gold standard, subclassified based on the different diagnostic criteria used.RESULTS: We selected 22 studies on 1585 patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 60.2%, 93.8%, 79.7%, respectively, for criteria antecedents to McKeith 1996. For McKeith 1996-possible, pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 65.6%, 80.6%, 77.9% in early stages and 72.3%, 64.3%, 66% in late stages, respectively. For McKeith 1996-probable, pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 19.4%, 95.1%, 77.7% in early stages and 48.6%, 88%, 79.2% in late stages, respectively. McKeith criteria 2005 were evaluated only in late stages: pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91.3%, 66.7% and 81.6%, respectively, for possible diagnosis (only one study) and 88.3%, 80.8%, 90.7% for probable diagnosis, decreasing to 85.6%, 77.1% and 81.7% if only considering clinical settings focused on dementia diagnosis and care.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Diagnostic criteria have become more sensitive and less specific over time, without substantial change in the accuracy. Based on current data, about 20% of DLB diagnosis are incorrect. Future studies are needed to evaluate if the recently released revised consensus criteria will improve the diagnostic accuracy of DLB.
KW - Journal Article
U2 - 10.1136/jnnp-2017-316844
DO - 10.1136/jnnp-2017-316844
M3 - Article
C2 - 29030419
JO - Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
JF - Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
SN - 0022-3050
ER -