Introduction
Materials and Methods
Eligibility Criteria
Information Sources and Search
Study Selection
Data Collection Process and Data Items
Risk of Bias in Individual Studies
Analyses
Variables of Interest
Meta-Analysis
Exploration of Sources of Heterogeneity
Sensitivity to Prior Distributions
Publication Bias
Subsidiary Analyses Excluding High Risk of Bias Studies
Results
Study Selection
Study Characteristics
Study | N | Type of MCI/criteria | Outcome | Follow-up in months | N progressors (%) | Age of progressors M (SD) | % female for progressors | Education of progressors | Neuropsychological tests included in the analysis | Type of study |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Ahmed et al. 2008) | 18 | aMCI | AD | 12 | 7 (39) | 71.7 (6.8) | n.r. | 11.9 (1.6) | ● Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination ● Famous buildings, Associative Learning Battery ● Patterns, Associative Learning Battery ● CANTAB paired associate learning (short version) ● Graded naming test ● Animal fluency ● Trail making test, Part B ● Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination + CANTAB paired associate learning | LP |
(Albert et al. 2001) | 114 | QAD | AD | 36 | 23 (19) | 73 | 48 | n.r. | ● Trail making test, Part B + Figures WMS, Immediate recall + Self Ordering Test, total score | LP |
(Anchisi et al. 2005) | 48 | aMCI | AD | 12 (median) | 14 (29) | 71.1 (3.9) | 64 | 9.1 (5.0) | ● CVLT, long delay recall | LP |
(Arnaiz et al. 2001) | 20 | MCI, GDS = 3 | AD | 33.6 (14.6) | 9 (45) | 64.9 (8.3) | 33 | 11.9 (2.2) | ● Block design, WAIS-R | LP |
(Babins et al. 2008) | 8a
| aMCI | AD | 58.8 (13.6) | 41 (50)
| 77.6 (5.7) | n.r. | 11.54 (3.6) | ● Clock drawing test, 18-point scoring system | LP |
(Belleville et al. 2014b) | 92 | aMCI | cognitive decline and AD | 30.81 (20) | 49 AD +10 decliners MCI (55) | 70.5 (7.9) | 60 | 14.5 (4.4) | ● Macro Text, delayed recall ● RL/RI 16, free delayed recall ● Alpha span, items alpha recalled ● BORB, line judgement ● BORB, object decision ● D.O.80 ● Combination Macro Text, delayed recall + Free recall of words + D.O.80 + BORB line judgement + BORB object decision +alpha-span | LP |
(Buchhave et al. 2008) | 147 | aMCI | AD, VD and other dementia | 62.4 | 63 (43) | 74.6 (6.1) | 68 | n.r. | Cube copying, total score | LP |
(Defrancesco et al. 2013) | 60 a
| aMCI | AD | 18.3 (7.1) | 31 (52)
| 76.3 (6.7) | 77 | 10.4 (3.5) | Combination CERAD word list recall + MMSE orientation | LR |
(Didic et al. 2013) | 26 | sd-aMCI | AD | 42 (22.2) | 15 (58) | 71.8 (6.0) | 40 | 11 | ● FCSRT, free recall ● FCSRT, total recall ● FCSRT, total delayed recall ● Logical Memory WMS-III, Delayed recall ● Logical Memory WMS-III, Recognition ● Knowledge Public Events, free recall ● Knowledge Public Events, total recall ● Rey’s Figure, delayed recall ● DMS48, immediate recognition ● DMS48, delayed recognition ● Face recognition WMS-III ● Combination Logical Memory WMS-III, delayed recall + DMS48, immediate recognition | LP |
(Dierckx et al. 2009) | 31 | sd-aMCI | AD | 17 (2) | 7 (23) | 76.7 (4.9) | 29 | 12.7 (3.3) | ● MISplus, total delayed recall ● Visual association test, total | LP |
(Eckerstrom et al. 2013) | 42a
| MCI (GDS = 3) | dementia and AD | 24 | 13 (31%) | 70.0 (6.5) | 69 | 10.0 (2.9) | ● RAVLT delayed recall ● Boston naming test ● VOSP Silhouettes | LR |
(Ewers et al. 2012) | 130 | aMCI | AD | 39.6
b
| 58 | 74.6 (7.3) | 33 | n.r. | ● RAVLT, delayed recall ● RAVLT, immediate recall@
● RAVLT, delayed recognition ● Digit span, total score ● Trail making test, Part B ● Trail making test, Part Bb
● Category (vegetables) fluency | ADNI |
(Flicker et al. 1991) | 32 | MCI (GDS = 3) | GDS decline and AD | 25,32+/−1,08 | 16 (50) + 7 decliners | n.r. | n.r. | n.r. | ● Object function recognition ● Object identification | LP |
(Gallagher et al. 2010) | 182c
| MCI | AD | 26 (17.5) | 75 (41) | 73.9 (5.9) | 53 | n.r. | ● Combination DWR, free recall + categoryfluency ● DWR-extended, free recallc
● DWR-extended, recognition c
● CAMCOG, total score c
● CAMCOG, orientation c
● CAMCOG, perception c
● CAMCOG, category fluency c
● CAMCOG, letter fluency c
● Boston Naming test c
| LR |
(Gallagher et al. 2010) | ● Combination DWR free recall + DWR recognition | |||||||||
(Galton et al. 2005) | 29 | QD | AD | 24 (5.4) | 11 (35) | 70.9 (8.9) | 46 | n.r. | ● Logical Memory WMS-R, immediate recall ● Logical Memory WMS-R, delayed recall ● Warrington’s recognition memory tests, short recognition memory test for words ● Warrington’s recognition memory tests, short recognition memory test for faces ● Doors test, total score ● Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination ● ADAS-Cog total ● Category fluency ● Graded naming test ● Cambridge Semantic Battery, Picture naming (64) | LP |
(Griffith et al. 2006) | 49d
| sd-aMCI | AD | 24 | 13 (26) | 70.2 (6.7) | 77 | 13.5 (1.9) | ● Visual Reproduction WMS-III, percent retention ● Combination Dementia Rating Scale, initiation/perserveration + Visual Reproduction, percent retention | LP |
(Irish et al. 2011) | 15 | aMCI | AD | 22.4 (9.5) | 6 (38) | 71.8e (6.8) | 38e
| 13.8e (4.7) | ● Face name association task, free delayed recall of names | LP |
(Kluger et al. 1999) | 71 | MCI f (GDS = 3) | Declineg
| 45.6f (26.4) | 47 (66) | 73.0f (9.1) | 61f
| 13.4f (3.3) | ● Guild Paragraph, delayed recall | LR |
(Lekeu et al. 2010) | 34 | aMCI | AD | 26.8 | 17 (50) | 72.0 (5.9) | 71 | 10.8 (2.5) | ● Rey’s figure, delayed recall | LP |
(Marcos et al. 2006) | 82 | aMCI | AD | 36 | 38 (46) | 77.6 (6.1) | 68 | 84% <10 years | ● Blessed Dementia scale ● MMSE ● CAMCOG, total ● CAMCOG, perception ● CAMCOG, orientation ● Combination CAMCOG global score + CAMCOG memory + CAMCOG perception | LP |
(Mitchell et al. 2009) | 82 | MCI | AD | 24 | 35 (41) | n.r. | n.r. | n.r. | ● Combination Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination and/or CANTAB paired associate learning | LP |
(Perri et al. 2007a) | 190 | sd-aMCI | AD | 24 | 79 (42) | 73,2+/−5,5 | 56 | 7,5+/−3,2 | ● Unrelated word list, immediate recall ● Related word list, immediate recall ● Unrelated word list, delayed recall ● Related word list, delayed recall ● Prose recall, immediate recall ● Prose recall, delayed recall ● Rey’s figure, immediate recall ● Rey’s figure, delayed recall ● CDR, mean sum boxes | LP |
(Richard et al. 2013) | 181 | aMCI | AD | 38.9 | 81 (45) | 74.4 (7.4) | 38 | 15.6 (3.0) | ● RAVLT Total recalla
| ADNI |
(Sarazin et al. 2007) | 217 | aMCI | AD | 31 (10.5) | 59 (26) | 74.8 (4.1) | 54 | n.r. | ● FCSRT, delayed free recall ● FCSRT, total delayed recall ● FCSRT, free recall ● FCSRT, total recall ● Similarities WAIS-R ● Benton visual retention test ● Double task Baddeley ● Serial digits ordering tests ● Digit symbol test WAIS-R ● Stroop test ● Trail Making test-Part A ● Trail Making test-Part B ● Naming-Deno 100 ● Letter (S) fluency ● Category (fruit) fluency | LP |
(Tabert et al. 2006) | 115h
| MCI | AD | 21 (15) | 35 (30) | 72.7 (7.2) | 60 | 13.9 (4.5) | ● Combination SRT, total immediate recall + Digit symbol WAIS-R | LP |
(Tierney et al. 1996) | 123 | CI | AD | 24 | 29 (24) | 73.9 (6.7) | n.r. | 13.5 (3.0) | ● RAVLT, delayed recall + Mental control WMSc
| LP |
(Venneri et al. 2011) | 25 | MCI | AD | 36 | 11 (44) | 72.45 (5.07) | 36% | 8.64 (4.58) | ● Category fluency ● Raven’s progressive matrices ● Paired associate Learning | LP |
(Visser et al. 2001) | 67 | MCI | AD | 60 | 23 (67) | 70.1 (6.6) | 52 | 10.8 (3.4) | ● RAVLT, delayed recall | LP |
Risk of Bias within Studies
Study | Patient selection (variation in participant selection, conversion rate, MCI definition)
| Study design appropriate (retrospective or prospective, independence between diagnostic and predictive assessment)
| Flow and follow-up (Follow-up sufficiently long, Loss to follow-up explained)
| Reference standard (outcome clearly defined and suitable diagnostic procedure)
| Prognostic variables (predictive tests well described)
| Analyses (Identification of an optimal 5subset and threshold specified independently from dataset)
| Risk of Bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Ahmed et al. 2008) | Yes, but small sample | Yes | Yes but short follow-up | Yes | Yes | No regression, use independent threshold | L |
(Albert et al. 2001) | No, lots of exclusion criteria (15% eligibility), QAD based only on CDR (seem less impaired than MCI) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes stepwise discriminant function, no specified threshold | M |
(Anchisi et al. 2005) | Yes | No independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes but short follow-up | Yes | Yes | ROC curve analysis, threshold calculated on sample | H |
(Arnaiz et al. 2001) | No, small sample, no details about exclusion criteria (seems strict, e.g., having PET examination). | No, absence of independence between diagnostic and predictive batteries | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, logistic regression, no specified threshold | M |
(Babins et al. 2008) | No, not sure of selection process (50% progressors, maybe a posteriori selection of subsample) | Not sure if retrospective or not. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, ROC curves analysis, but threshold calculated on sample | H |
(Belleville et al. 2014b) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, but pooled together MCI decliners and converters | Yes | Yes, backward logistic regression but threshold calculated on sample | L |
(Buchhave et al. 2008) | Yes | Yes (MMSE used in both assessments was not included in systematic review) | Yes | Yes | Yes | ROC curves, hreshold calculated on sample | L |
(Defrancesco et al. 2013) | No, convenience sample (selection of participants to maximize number of progressors) | No, retrospective study, not sure of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, stepwise logisitc regression, no specified threshold | H |
(Didic et al. 2013) | Not sure, only sd-a MCI, small sample | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ROC curves, threshold calculated on sample | L |
(Dierckx et al. 2009) | No, sd-aMCI, no information about exclusion criteria, small sample | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, binary logistic regression analysis, but ROC curves, threshold calculated on sample | H |
(Eckerstrom et al. 2013) | No, selection of participants who had MRI with a specific scanner, (non- progressors were added to match the converted sample) | No, retrospective | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis but ROC curves, no specified threshold | H |
(Ewers et al. 2012) | Yes | Yes (selection from ADNI database, identical to whole sample) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, logistic regression, no specified threshold | L |
(Flicker et al. 1991) | Yes, but relatively small sample | Not sure of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | No, but pool together GDS decline and AD (not specific AD) complete diagnostic evaluations at FU only on GDS decliners | No | Lack of details, no specified threshold | H |
(Gallagher et al. 2010) | Yes, but high conversion rate | No, retrospective. Not sure of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, cox proportional hazards regression, ROC curves threshold calculated on sample | H |
(Galton et al. 2005) | Yes, but no memory deficit needed in cognitive deficit criteria, small sample | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Separate discriminant function for each variable, no specified threshold | L |
(Griffith et al. 2006) | No, lots of exclusion, 13/49 participants were taking medication for memory problems | Yes, but not sure of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, stepwise discriminant function analysis, threshold calculated on sample | H |
(Irish et al. 2011) | Yes, but very small sample, high conversion rate | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, regressions models but threshold calculated on sample | M |
(Kluger et al. 1999) | No, very restrictive exclusion criteria and definition with GDS | No, retrospective study | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, regressions analyses but threshold calculated on sample | H |
(Lekeu et al. 2010) | Yes but, high conversion rate, small sample | Yes, but not sure of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, regression analyses but ROC curves threshold calculated on sample | M |
(Marcos et al. 2006) | Yes | No, absence of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes, but no explanation about loss to follow-up | Yes | Yes | Not sure, pool together global camcog and camcog subtest while they are correlated, ROC curves threshold calculated on sample | M |
(Mitchell et al. 2009) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not sure (MMSE and CDR used to diagnose conversion) | Yes | Yes, stepwise discriminant analysis, threshold based on control group data | M |
(Perri et al. 2007a) | Yes, but sd-aMCI | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, logistic regression, threshold based on normative data | L |
(Richard et al. 2013) | Not sure, selection of participants who had imaging and CSF data | Yes (data from ADNI database) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, stepwise forward analysis, but ROC curves, threshold calculated on sample | L |
(Sarazin et al. 2007) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, logistic regression, but but ROC curves, threshold calculated on sample | L |
(Tabert et al. 2006) | No, pool together people with and without objective cognitive deficits | No, absence of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, Cox regressions, logistic regressions, no specified thresholds | H |
(Tierney et al. 1996) | Not sure, lots of exclusion criteria, use GDS and DRS as criteria for inclusion | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, logistic regression, no specified threshold | L |
(Venneri et al. 2011) | Yes but small sample | Yes, but absence of independence between diagnostic and predictive assessments | Yes | Yes | Yes | Threshold based on control group data | M |
(Visser et al. 2001) | Yes | No, restrospective, not sure of independence between diagnostic and predictive batteries | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, logistic regression analysis, no specified threshold | M |
Results from the Systematic Review
TP | FP | FN | TN | SE | SP | ACC | Cut-off | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Verbal episodic memory | ||||||||
Verbal immediate recall** | ||||||||
Logical memory, immediate recall (Galton et al. 2005)* | 10 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.83 | n.r. |
FCSRT, free recall (Sarazin et al. 2007)*a
| 42 | 13 | 17 | 145 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 17 |
World-list cued immediate recall with oriented encoding | ||||||||
FCSRT, total recall (Didic et al. 2013) | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 0.77 | 37 |
FCSRT, total recall (Sarazin et al. 2007)a
| 47 | 16 | 12 | 142 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 40 |
paragraph delayed recall** | ||||||||
Logical memory, delayed recall (Galton et al. 2005)* | 10 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.83 | n.r. |
Logical memory, delayed recall (Didic et al. 2013)* | 11 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 6 |
Guild Paragraph, delayed recall (Kluger et al. 1999)* | 45 | 4 | 2 | 20 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.92 | n.r. |
Word-list free delayed recall with non oriented encoding** | ||||||||
RAVLT, delayed recall (Eckerstrom et al. 2013)* c
| 12 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.94 | n.r. |
RAVLT, delayed recall (Visser et al. 2001)* | 17 | 3 | 6 | 41 | 0.74 | 0.93 | 0.87 | n.r. |
Word-list free delayed recall with oriented encoding** | ||||||||
CVLT, long delay free recall (Anchisi et al. 2005)* | 13 | 14 | 1 | 20 | 0.93 | 0.59 | 0.69 | 7 |
FCSRT, delayed free recall (Sarazin et al. 2007)* a
| 45 | 15 | 14 | 143 | 0.76 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 6 |
Face-name association task, free delayed recall of names (Irish et al. 2011)* | 6 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 1.00 | 0.86 | 0.92 | 3 |
Word-list cued delayed recall with oriented encoding ** | ||||||||
FCSRT, total delayed recall (Didic et al. 2013)* | 9 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 0.60 | 0.91 | 0.73 | 12 |
MISplus total delayed recall free&cued (Dierckx et al. 2009)* | 5 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 2 |
Paragraph recognition | ||||||||
Logical memory WMS-III recognition (Didic et al. 2013) | 5 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 0.45 | 1.00 | 0.70 | 18 |
Visual episodic memory | ||||||||
Immediate recall | ||||||||
Rey’s figure, immediate recall (Perri et al. 2007b) | 14 | 9 | 65 | 102 | 0.18 | 0.92 | 0.61 | n.r. |
Delayed recall** | ||||||||
Visual Reproduction, percent retention (Griffith et al. 2006)* | 10 | 3 | 3 | 33 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 26 |
Visual recognition | ||||||||
DSM48, immediate recognition (Didic et al. 2013) | 12 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 0.80 | 0.91 | 0.85 | 89 |
Face recognition WMS-III, immediate scaled score (Didic et al. 2013) | 14 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0.93 | 0.45 | 0.73 | 12 |
Associative memory | ||||||||
Paired Associate Learning (Venneri et al. 2011) | 11 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.44 | n.r. |
CANTAB paired associate learning short version (Ahmed et al. 2008) | 7 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 14 |
Visual Association test total (Dierckx et al. 2009) | 3 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 0.43 | 0.96 | 0.84 | 1/6 |
Patterns, Associative Learning Battery, errors (Ahmed et al. 2008) | 7 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 1.00 | 0.46 | 0.67 | 18 |
Language | ||||||||
Naming tests** | ||||||||
Boston naming test; 60 items (Eckerstrom et al. 2013)* c
| 13 | 5 | 0 | 16 | 0.99 | 0.74 | 0.85 | n.r. |
Graded naming test (Ahmed et al. 2008)* | 3 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 0.40 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 14 |
Tests of semantic knowledge** | ||||||||
Object function recognition (Flicker et al. 1991)* | 20 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.90 | n.r. |
Object identification (Flicker et al. 1991) | 13 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.69 | n.r. |
Semantic fluency** | ||||||||
Category fluency; animals, vegetables & fruits (Gallagher et al. 2010)* | 60 | 22 | 4 | 20 | 0.94 | 0.48 | 0.75 | 36 |
Category fluency; animals (Ahmed et al. 2008)* | 2 | 0 | 5 | 11 | 0.29 | 1.00 | 0.72 | 11 |
Category fluency (Venneri et al. 2011)* | 10 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 0.91 | 0.50 | 0.68 | n.r. |
Visuo-constructive functions | ||||||||
Visuo-spatial tests** | ||||||||
VOSP Silhouettes (Eckerstrom et al. 2013)*c
| 12 | 2 | 1 | 19 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.91 | n.r. |
Brief and Global measures | ||||||||
Global measures** | ||||||||
ACE Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (Ahmed et al. 2008)* | 7 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 1.00 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 88 |
ACE Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (Galton et al. 2005)* | 8 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.90 | n.r. |
CAMCOG, total score (Marcos et al. 2006)* | 35 | 14 | 3 | 30 | 0.92 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 79.5 |
TP | FP | FN | TN | SE | SP | ACC | Cut-off | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Verbal episodic memory | ||||||||
Paragraph delayed recall** | ||||||||
Guild Paragraph, delayed recall (Kluger et al. 1999)* | 45 | 4 | 2 | 20 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.92 | n.r. |
Word-list free delayed recall with non oriented encoding** | ||||||||
RAVLT, delayed Recall (Eckerstrom et al. 2013)* c
| 12 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.94 | n.r. |
Word-list free delayed recall with oriented encoding** | ||||||||
Face-name association task, free delayed recall of names (Irish et al. 2011)* | 6 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0.86 | 0.92 | 3 |
Language | ||||||||
Tests of semantic knowledge** | ||||||||
Object function recognition (Flicker et al. 1991)* | 20 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.90 | n.r. |
Visuo-constructive functions | ||||||||
Visuo-spatial tests** | ||||||||
VOSP Silhouettes (Eckerstrom et al. 2013)*c
| 12 | 2 | 1 | 19 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.91 | n.r. |
Brief and Global measures | ||||||||
Global measures** | ||||||||
ACE Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (Galton et al. 2005)* | 8 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.90 | n.r. |
Results of the Meta-Analyses
Cognitive domains | All studies | High risk of bias studies excluded | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Sensitivity [CrI] | Specificity [CrI] | N | Sensitivity [CrI] | Specificity [CrI] | |
Verbal episodic memory | ||||||
Verbal immediate recall | 5 | 0.745a
[0.511–0.905] | 0.771a
[0.581–0.897] | No high risk of bias study | ||
Paragraph delayed recall | 5 | 0.776 [0.541–0.928] | 0.794 [0.675–0.914] | 4 | 0.636 [0.510–0.808] | 0.795 [0.623–0.953] |
Word-list free delayed recall with non oriented encoding, | 4 | 0.742 [0.625–0.868] | 0.814 [0.517–0.961] | 3 | 0.707 [0.584–0.815] | 0.744 [0.354–0.950] |
Word-list free delayed recall with oriented encoding | 5 | 0.781 [0.704–0.867] | 0.797 [0.651–0.893] | 3 | 0.765 [0.647–0.891] | 0.869 [0.717–0.944] |
Word-list cued delayed recall with oriented encoding | 3 | 0.676 [0.526–0.796] | 0.896 [0.822–0.947] | 2 | Not analyzable | |
Word-list recognition | 3 | 0.547 [428–0.671] | 0.789 [0.602–0.927] | 2 | Not analyzable | |
Visual episodic memory | ||||||
Delayed recall | 4 | 0.676 [0.413–0.889] | 0.847 [0.722–0.913] | 3 | 0.650 [0.320–0.912] | 0.814 [0.624–0.904] |
Language | ||||||
Naming tests | 6 | 0.699 [0.51–0.868] | 0.707 [0.621–0.813] | 4 | 0.571 [0.458–0.683] | 0.742 [0.622–0.887] |
Tests of semantic knowledge | 3 | 0.703b
[0.442–0.906] | 0.814 b
[0.631–0.984] | 2 | Not analyzable | |
Semantic fluency | 6 | 0.708 [0.468–0.875] | 0.7 [0.539–0.836] | 5 | 0.598 [0.425–0.779] | 0.744 [0.565–0.891] |
Executive functions | ||||||
Switching tests | 3 | 0.541 [0.314–0.701] | 0.679 [0.542–0.797] | No high risk of bias study | ||
Working memory tests | 3 | 0.599 [0.463–0.724] | 0.667 [0.573–0.747] | No high risk of bias study | ||
Visuo-constructive functions | ||||||
Visuo-spatial tests | 4 | 0.68 [0.366–0.914] | 0.749 [0.613–0.873] | 2 | Not analyzable | |
Visuo-constructive tasks | 4 | 0.637 [0.471–0.778] | 0.643 [0.496–0.775] | 3 | 0.561 [0.399–0.722] | 0.705 [0.557–0.823] |
Brief/global measures | 4 | 0.852c
[0.73–0.946] | 0.757 c
[0.468–0.966] | 3 | 0.899 [0.721–0.981] | 0.851 [0.294–1.00] |
Cognitive domains | Follow-up effect | Age effect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Effect on logit(Se) [CrI] | Effect on logit(Sp) [CrI] | Effect on logit(Se) [CrI] | Effect on logit(Sp) [CrI] | |
Paragraph delayed recall | 0.071 [−0.123, 0.245] | 0.070 [−0.032, 0.205] | 0.145 [−0.567, 0.791] | −0.243 [−0.688, 0.399] |
Word-list, free delayed recall with oriented encoding | −0.058 [−0.165, 0.014] | 0.046 [−0.073, 0.151] | NA | NA |
Naming | 0.026 [−0.184, 0.229] | −0.094 [−0.173, −0.027] | −0.129 [−0.658, 0.354] | −0.114 [−0.399, 0.148] |
Semantic fluency | 0.143 [0.035, 0.261] | −0.092 [−0.242, 0.003] | −0.011 [−0.571, 0.560] | −0.064 [−0.570, 0.391] |
N | Sensitivity [CrI] | Specificity [CrI] | Follow-up (months) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Naming (short FU) | 3 | 0.842a
[0.256, 1] | 0.852a
[0.703, 0.943] | 12–24 |
Naming (long FU) | 3 | 0.653 [0.437, 0.825] | 0.648 [0.539, 0.738] | 31–36 |
Semantic fluency (short FU) | 3 | 0.540 a
[0.324, 0.722] | 0.765 a
[0.437, 0.998] | 12–24 |
Semantic fluency (long FU) | 3 | 0.842 [0.569, 0.966] | 0.640 [0.386, 0.816] | 31–36 |