A Survey of FDG- and Amyloid-PET Imaging in Dementia and GRADE Analysis

Table 2

Summary of the included PET studies for differential diagnosis, with LHR+, increase of the LHR+, and GRADE.

Authors	Population	Method	Cohort investigated	Sensitivity	Specificity	LHR+	Increase in the LHR+	Quality of evidence (GRADE)
Minoshima et al., 2001 [42]	AD + LBD	Minoshima	74	0.9	0.8	4.50	Small	L
Gilman et al., 2005 [88]	AD + LBD	VOI lCMRglc	45	0.643	0.652	1.85	Minimal	VL
Foster et al., 2007 [33]	AD + FTD	Minoshima	45	0.732	0.976	30.50	Large	M
Mosconi et al., 2008a [89]	AD + FTD	Minoshima	297	0.99	0.65	2.83	Small	L
Mosconi et al., 2008b [89]	AD + LBD	Minoshima	226	0.99	0.71	3.41	Small	L
Mosconi et al., 2008c [89]	AD + HC	Minoshima	199	0.99	0.98	49.50	Large	M
Mosconi et al., 2008d [89]	FTD + LBD	Minoshima	125	0.71	0.65	2.03	Small	L

Population: different dementias considered in the diagnosis. Method: quantitative method applied in the study. Cohort investigated: number of patients considered for sensitivity and specificity estimations in the discrimination. Sensitivity and specificity: results of the study data show potential of discrimination. LHR+: likelihood ratio. Increase in the LHR+: increase in the probability of the likelihood of the disease. GRADE: results of GRADE evaluation. Quality of evidence was evaluated based on LHR+ values, LHR+ increase probability, and size of the sample included.
Abbreviations: AD: Alzheimer’s disease; LBD: Lewy body dementia; FTD: frontotemporal dementia; HC: healthy controls.