Key Question 1: Accuracy, Comparative Accuracy, and Harms of Cognitive Tests for Identifying CATD

Howard A. Fink; Laura S. Hemmy; Eric J. Linskens; Pombie C. Silverman; Roderick MacDonald; J. Riley McCarten; Kristine M.C. Talley; Priyanka J. Desai; Mary L. Forte; Margaret A. Miller; Michelle Brasure; Victoria A. Nelson; Brent C. Taylor; Weiwen Ng; Jeannine M. Ouellette; Nancy L. Greer; Kerry M. Sheets; Timothy J. Wilt; Mary Butler

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Fink HA, Hemmy LS, Linskens EJ, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer’s-Type Dementia: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2020 Apr. (Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 223.)

Cover of Diagnosis and Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer’s-Type Dementia: A Systematic Review

Diagnosis and Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer’s-Type Dementia: A Systematic Review [Internet].

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

Appendix CKey Question 1: Accuracy, Comparative Accuracy, and Harms of Cognitive Tests for Identifying CATD

Appendix Table C.1QUADAS-2 Risk of bias assessment for studies of classification accuracy of brief cognitive tests

Study	Risk of Bias: Patient Selection (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Risk of Bias: Index Test (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Risk of Bias: Reference Standard (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Risk of Bias: Flow and Timing (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Applicability Concerns: Patient Selection (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Applicability Concerns: Index Test (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Applicability Concerns: Reference Standard (0=low, 1=high or unclear)	Total Score	ROB Rating
Ashendorf 2008¹	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Bondi 1993²	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Brodaty 1997⁵	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Brown 2009⁶	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Buschke 1999⁷	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Cahn 1997⁸	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Cahn 1995⁹	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Cahn 1996¹⁰	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Canning 2004¹¹	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Cerhan 2002¹²	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Chandler 2005¹³	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Chapman 2010¹⁴	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Clark 2010¹⁵	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Clark 2014¹⁶	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Coen 1996¹⁷	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	4	High
Connor 2005¹⁸	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
De Jager 2003¹⁹	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Elamin 2016²⁰	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Esteban-Santillas 1998²¹	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Ewers 2012²²	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	4	High
Galasko 1990²³	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Gavett 2009²⁴	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Gomez 2006²⁵	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Grober 2008²⁶	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Grober 2008²⁷	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Hackett 2018²⁸	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	5	High
Hollocks 2018²⁹	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Johnson 2003³⁰	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Kalbe 2004³¹	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Knopman 1989³²	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Kuslansky 2002³³	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Kuslansky 2004³⁴	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Lange 2006³⁵	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Lee 1996³⁶	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Logsdon 1989³⁷	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Loewenstein 2001³⁸	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Mahoney 2005³⁹	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	4	High
Maruff 2013⁴⁰	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Mathuranath 2000⁴¹	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	4	High
Mendez 1992⁴²	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Mendiondo 2003⁴³)	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Millar 2017⁴⁴	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Monsch 1992⁴⁵	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Monsch 1995⁴⁶	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Montgomery 2017⁴⁷	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	4	High
Morgan 2010⁴⁸	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Parsey 2011⁴⁹	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Petersen 1994⁵⁰	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Quarmley 2017⁵¹	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	Medium
Roalf 2013⁵²	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	4	High
Roalf 2017⁵³	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Salmon 2002⁵⁴	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	Medium
Solomon 1998⁵⁵	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Springate 2014⁵⁶	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Storandt 1989⁵⁷	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Sunderaraman 2015⁵⁸	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Thompson 2011⁵⁹	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Tremont 2011⁶⁰	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium
Troster 199⁶¹	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	3	Medium
Trzepacz 2015⁶²	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Tuokko 1992⁶³	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	Medium
Welsh 1991⁶⁵	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Welsh 1992⁶⁶	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	2	Medium
Wolf-Klein 1989⁶⁷	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	3	Medium
Zainal 2016⁶⁸	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	Medium

Appendix Table C.2Classification accuracy results for brief cognitive tests designed as individual stand-alone tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Test/Test Type	Author Year	CATD N	Comp Group	Comp N	Score (Subgroup)	Cut point	SE	SP	PPV⁺	NPV⁺	CATD Base Rate
Brief Alzheimer Screen (BAS)	Mendiondo 2003⁴³	171	NC	203	Weighted sum score	22	0.90	0.99	0.99	0.92	0.46
BAS	Mendiondo 2003⁴³	171	NC	203	Weighted sum score	23	0.92	0.97	0.96	0.94	0.46
BAS	Mendiondo 2003⁴³	503	NC	657	Weighted sum score	26	0.98	0.96	0.95	0.98	0.43
Brief Memory and Executive Test (BMET)	Hollocks 2017²⁹	51	NC	51	Total score	13	0.86	1.00	1.00	0.88	0.50
Clock Drawing	Cahn 1996¹⁰	42	NC	237	Qualitative CDT score	1^*	0.81	0.68	0.31	0.95	0.15
Clock Drawing	Cahn 1996¹⁰	42	NC	237	Global CDT score	6	0.83	0.72	0.34	0.96	0.15
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Mendez CDIS gross	2	0.63	0.71	0.70	0.65	0.51
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Mendez CDIS numbers	10	0.15	0.97	0.84	0.52	0.51
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Mendez CDIS hands	2	0.12	1.00	1.00	0.52	0.51
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Mendez CDIS total	17	0.46	0.79	0.70	0.58	0.51
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	30	NC	30	Mendez CDIS total	18	0.73	0.77	0.76	0.74	0.50
Clock Drawing	Mendez 1992⁴²	46	NC	26	Mendez CDIS total	19^*	0.91	1.00	1.00	0.86	0.64
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	9	NC	30	Mendez CDIS total (very mild CATD)	18	0.44	0.77	0.36	0.82	0.23
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	17	NC	30	Mendez CDIS total (mild CATD)	18	0.82	0.77	0.67	0.88	0.36
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	4	NC	30	Mendez CDIS total (moderate CATD)	18	1.00	0.77	0.37	1.00	0.12
Clock Drawing	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Rouleau copy	7	0.57	0.87	0.45	0.91	0.16
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Rouleau face	1	0.81	0.21	0.52	0.51	0.51
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Rouleau numbers	3	0.44	0.76	0.66	0.56	0.51
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Rouleau hands	3	0.93	0.58	0.70	0.89	0.51
Clock Drawing	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Rouleau total	7	0.88	0.63	0.31	0.97	0.16
Clock Drawing	Cahn 1996¹⁰	42	NC	237	Rouleau total	7	0.88	0.63	0.30	0.97	0.15
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	50	NC	50	Rouleau total	7	0.74	0.88	0.86	0.77	0.50
Clock Drawing	Esteban-Santillan 1998²¹	41	NC	39	Rouleau total	9	0.93	0.42	0.63	0.85	0.51
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	20	NC	20	Rouleau total (mild CATD)	7	0.5	0.85	0.77	0.63	0.50
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Rouleau total (DRS 101-105)	7	0.9	0.88	0.60	0.98	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Rouleau total (DRS 106-110)	7	0.9	0.88	0.60	0.98	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Rouleau total (DRS 111-115)	7	0.8	0.88	0.57	0.96	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Rouleau total (DRS 116-120)	7	0.5	0.88	0.45	0.90	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Rouleau total (DRS 121-125)	7	0.5	0.88	0.45	0.90	0.17
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	Shulman scale	3^*	0.86	0.96	0.96	0.87	0.50
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	8	NC	28	Shulman scale (MMSE 24+)	3^*	0.88	0.96	0.86	0.96	0.22
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	20	NC	28	Shulman scale (MMSE <24)	3^*	0.85	0.96	0.94	0.90	0.42
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	30	NC	30	Sunderland scale	5	0.67	0.97	0.96	0.75	0.50
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	Sunderland scale	5	0.57	1.00	1.00	0.70	0.50
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	Sunderland scale	8	0.79	0.93	0.92	0.82	0.50
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	8	NC	28	Sunderland scale (MMSE 24+)	5	0.38	1.00	1.00	0.85	0.22
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	8	NC	28	Sunderland scale (MMSE 24+)	8	0.63	0.93	0.72	0.90	0.22
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	20	NC	28	Sunderland scale (MMSE <24)	8	0.85	0.93	0.90	0.90	0.42
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	9	NC	30	Sunderland scale (very mild CATD)	5	0.33	0.97	0.77	0.83	0.23
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	17	NC	30	Sunderland scale (mild CATD)	5	0.77	0.97	0.94	0.88	0.36
Clock Drawing	Lee 1996³⁶	4	NC	30	Sunderland scale (moderate CATD)	5	1.00	0.97	0.82	1.00	0.12
Clock Drawing	Tuokko 1992⁶³	58	NC	62	Tuokko drawing	3^*	0.86	0.92	0.91	0.88	0.48
Clock Drawing	Tuokko 1992⁶³	58	NC	62	Tuokko setting	13	0.97	0.87	0.87	0.97	0.48
Clock Drawing	Tuokko 1992⁶³	58	NC	62	Tuokko reading	13	0.85	0.92	0.91	0.87	0.48
Clock Drawing	Tuokko 1992⁶³	58	NC	62	Tuokko combined score	2^*	0.93	0.94	0.94	0.93	0.48
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	50	NC	50	Watson abbreviated	5^*	0.52	0.84	0.76	0.64	0.50
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	20	NC	20	Watson abbreviated (mild CATD)	5^*	0.40	0.80	0.67	0.57	0.50
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Watson abbreviated (DRS 101-105)	5^*	0.60	0.84	0.43	0.91	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Watson abbreviated (DRS 106-110)	5^*	0.60	0.84	0.43	0.91	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Watson abbreviated (DRS 111-115)	5^*	0.60	0.84	0.43	0.91	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Watson abbreviated (DRS 116-120)	5^*	0.60	0.84	0.43	0.91	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Watson abbreviated (DRS 121-125)	5^*	0.20	0.84	0.20	0.84	0.17
Clock Drawing	Wolf-Klein 1989⁶⁷	105	NC	109	Wolf-Klein abbreviated	5	0.75	0.94	0.93	0.80	0.49
Clock Drawing	Wolf-Klein 1989⁶⁷	121	NC	130	Wolf-Klein scale	5	0.87	0.93	0.92	0.88	0.48
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	Wolf-Klein scale	6	0.36	1.00	1.00	0.61	0.50
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	Wolf-Klein scale	8	0.79	0.89	0.88	0.81	0.50
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	50	NC	50	Wolf-Klein scale	8	0.78	0.78	0.78	0.78	0.50
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	8	NC	28	Wolf-Klein scale (MMSE 24+)	6	0.13	1.00	1.00	0.80	0.22
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	8	NC	28	Wolf-Klein scale (MMSE 24+)	8	0.88	0.89	0.69	0.96	0.22
Clock Drawing	Brodaty 1997⁵	20	NC	28	Wolf-Klein scale (MMSE <24)	8	0.75	0.89	0.83	0.83	0.42
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	20	NC	20	Wolf-Klein scale (mild CATD)	8	0.60	0.75	0.71	0.65	0.50
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Wolf-Klein scale (DRS 101-105)	8	0.90	0.78	0.45	0.98	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Wolf-Klein scale (DRS 106-110)	8	1.00	0.78	0.48	1.00	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Wolf-Klein scale (DRS 111-115)	8	0.80	0.78	0.42	0.95	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Wolf-Klein scale (DRS 116-120)	8	0.60	0.78	0.35	0.91	0.17
Clock Drawing	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Wolf-Klein scale (DRS 121-125)	8	0.60	0.78	0.35	0.91	0.17
Clock Drawing	Parsey 2011⁴⁹	33	MCI	33	CLOX 1 modified Rouleau	11	0.58	1.00	1.00	0.70	0.50
Clock Drawing	De Jager 2003¹⁹	55	MCI	29	CLOX 1 total	11	0.76	0.72	0.84	0.61	0.65
Clock Drawing	De Jager 2003¹⁹	55	MCI	29	CLOX 2 copy	13	0.67	0.62	0.77	0.50	0.65
Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE)	Chapman 2010¹⁴	55	NC	78	Total score	NR	0.56	0.88	0.77	0.74	0.41
MMSE	Kalbe 2004³¹	88	NC	97	Total score	21	0.92	0.86	0.86	0.92	0.48
MMSE	Kuslansky 2004³⁴	57	NC	323	Total score	24	0.75	0.82	0.42	0.95	0.15
MMSE	Kuslansky 2004³⁴	57	NC	323	Total score	25	0.88	0.70	0.34	0.97	0.15
MMSE	Chandler 2005¹³	95	NC	95	Total score	26	0.93	0.95	0.95	0.93	0.50
MMSE	Roalf 2017⁵³	340	NC	138	Total score	27	0.94	0.96	0.98	0.87	0.71
MMSE	Galasko 1990²³	24	NC	74	Total score (Mild CATD)	NR	0.79	0.99	0.95	0.94	0.24
MMSE	Galasko 1990²³	50	NC	74	Total score (Moderate CATD)	23	1.00	0.99	0.98	1.00	0.40
MMSE	Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	23	NC	17	Total score (Middle School)	21	0.82	0.94	0.95	0.79	0.58
MMSE	Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	23	NC	17	Total score (Middle School)	24	1.00	0.59	0.77	1.00	0.58
MMSE	Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	33	NC	30	Total score (High school)	23	0.79	0.97	0.97	0.81	0.52
MMSE	Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	33	NC	30	Total score (High school)	24	0.88	0.79	0.82	0.86	0.52
MMSE	Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	53	NC	54	Total score (College+)	24	0.83	1.00	1.00	0.86	0.50
MMSE	Chandler 2005¹³	95	MCI	60	Total score	25	0.88	0.83	0.89	0.82	0.61
MMSE	Roalf 2017⁵³	340	MCI	109	Total score	18	0.79	0.79	0.92	0.55	0.76
Memory Impairment Screen (MIS)	Buschke 1999⁷	39	NC	433	Total score	4	0.87	0.96	0.66	0.99	0.08
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	28	NC	212	Total score	4	0.86	0.97	0.79	0.98	0.12
MIS	Buschke 1999⁷		NC	433	Total score (Mild CATD)	4	0.79	0.96	NA	NA	NA
MIS	Buschke 1999⁷		NC	433	Total score (Moderate CATD)	4	0.95	0.96	NA	NA	NA
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	4	NC	212	Total score (CDR 0.5)	4	0.75	0.97	0.32	1.00	0.02
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	4	NC	212	Total score (CDR 0.5)	5	1.00	0.85	0.11	1.00	0.02
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	16	NC	212	Total score (CDR 1.0)	4	0.81	0.97	0.67	0.99	0.07
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	6	NC	212	Total score (CDR 2.0)	2	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.03
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	6	NC	212	Total score (CDR 2.0)	4	1.00	0.97	0.49	1.00	0.03
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	2	NC	212	Total score (CDR 3.0)	1	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.01
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	2	NC	212	Total score (CDR 3.0)	2	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.01
MIS	Kuslansky 2002³³	2	NC	212	Total score (CDR 3.0)	3	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.01
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)	Quarmley 2017^*⁵¹	231	NC	155	Total score	23	0.93	0.94	0.96	0.90	0.60
MoCA	Roalf 2017⁵³	340	NC	138	Total score	22	0.94	1.00	1.00	0.87	0.71
MoCA	Roalf 2017⁵³	340	NC	138	Total score – modified short version	10	0.96	0.91	0.96	0.90	0.71
MoCA	Roalf 2017⁵³	340	MCI	109	Total score	24	0.76	0.78	0.92	0.51	0.76
MoCA	Roalf 2017⁵³	340	MCI	109	Total score – modified short version	6	0.67	0.79	0.91	0.43	0.76
MoCA	Trzepacz 2015⁶²	100	MCI	299	Total score	19	0.82	0.88	0.70	0.94	0.25
MoCA	Quarmley 2017^*⁵¹	231	MCI	110	Total score	19	0.97	0.79	0.91	0.92	0.68
7 Minute Screen (7MS)	Solomon 1998⁵⁵	60	NC	60	Total score	0.3, 0.7	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.50
7MS	Solomon 1998⁵⁵	60	NC	60	Total score	0.1, 0.9	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.50
7MS	Solomon 1998⁵⁵	30	NC	30	Total score (confirmation sample)	0.1, 0.9	0.92	0.96	0.96	0.92	0.50
7MS	Solomon 1998⁵⁵	35	NC	60	Total score (MMSE 21+)	0.1, 0.9	0.98	0.98	0.97	0.99	0.37
7MS	Solomon 1998⁵⁵		NC		Total score (MMSE 24+)	0.1, 0.9	0.98	1.00	NA	NA	NA
Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen (MCAS)	Tremont 2011⁶⁰	50	aMCI	100	Total score	42.5	0.86	0.77	0.65	0.92	0.33
Test Your Memory (TYM)	Brown 2009⁶	94	NC	282	Total score	42	0.93	0.86	0.69	0.97	0.25

: Abbreviations: aMCI=amnestic mild cognitive impairment; BAS=Brief Alzheimer Screen; BMET=Brief Memory and Executive Test; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia; CDIS=clock drawing interpretation scale; CDT=clock drawing test; Comp=comparator; MCAS=Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen; MCI=Mild Cognitive Impairment; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE=Mini-Mental State Exam; MoCA; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NC=normal control; NR=not reported; NPV=negative predictive value; PPV=positive predictive value; SE=sensitivity; SP=specificity; TYM=Test Your Memory; 7MS=7 Minute Screen
*: indicates that values equal to or higher than the specified cut point are associated with worse cognition
+: indicates that some PPV and NPV values were back-calculated

Appendix Table C.3Classification accuracy results for brief cognitive batteries in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Cognitive Battery	Author Year	CATD N	Comp Group	Comp N	Score (Subgroup)	Cut Point	SE	SP	PPV⁺	NPV⁺	CATD Base Rate
*Dementia Rating Scale (DRS)*	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Total score	129	0.97	0.99	1.00	0.93	0.71
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	74	NC	74	Total score	132	0.96	0.92	0.92	0.96	0.50
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Construction score	5	0.73	0.70	0.85	0.52	0.71
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Memory score	21	0.93	0.98	0.99	0.85	0.71
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Attention score	35	0.71	0.84	0.91	0.54	0.71
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Initiation & Preservation score	33	0.93	0.94	0.97	0.85	0.71
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Conceptualization score	33	0.69	0.91	0.95	0.55	0.71
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	254	NC	105	Memory/Initiation & Preservation	x<0	0.98	0.98	0.99	0.95	0.71
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	44	NC	238	Memory/Initiation & Preservation	x<0	0.91	0.93	0.71	0.98	0.16
	Monsch 1995⁴⁶	76	NC	105	Memory/Initiation & Preservation (mild CATD)	x<0	0.92	0.98	0.97	0.94	0.42
	Springate 2014⁵⁶	49	MCI	98	Total score	123	0.78	0.83	0.70	0.88	0.33
*Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment ScaleCognitive (ADAS-Cog)*	Zainal 2016⁶⁸	64	NC	125	Total Score (ADAS-Cog 11)	14^*	0.81	1.00	1.00	0.91	0.34
	Zainal 2016⁶⁸	64	NC	125	Total Score (ADAS-Cog 12)	21^*	0.73	1.00	1.00	0.88	0.34
	Zainal 2016⁶⁸	64	MCI	80	Total Score (ADAS-Cog 11)	12^*	0.86	0.89	0.86	0.89	0.44
	Zainal 2016⁶⁸	64	MCI	80	Total Score (ADAS-Cog 12)	21^*	0.79	0.89	0.85	0.84	0.44
*Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB)*	Maruff 2013⁴⁰	42	NC	642	Learning/Working Memory	89	1.00	0.847	0.30	1.00	0.06
*Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB)*	Maruff 2013⁴⁰	51	NC	659	Attention/Psychomotor	89	0.53	0.857	0.22	0.96	0.07
*Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) Neuropsychological Battery*	Chandler 2005¹³	95	NC	95	CERAD Total Score	77	0.94	0.93	0.93	0.94	0.50
	Chandler 2005¹³	95	MCI	60	CERAD Total Score	68	0.80	0.81	0.87	0.72	0.61
*Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS)*	Morgan 2010⁴⁸	100	NC	100	Verbal Index	NR	0.88	0.82	0.83	0.87	0.50
	Morgan 2010⁴⁸	100	NC	100	Visual Index	NR	0.86	0.77	0.79	0.85	0.50
	Morgan 2010⁴⁸	100	NC	100	Verbal & Visual Indices	NR	0.92	0.79	0.81	0.91	0.50
	Morgan 2010⁴⁸	100	MCI	38	Verbal Index	NR	0.61	0.71	0.85	0.41	0.72
	Morgan 2010⁴⁸	100	MCI	38	Visual Index	NR	0.68	0.76	0.88	0.48	0.72
	Morgan 2010⁴⁸	100	MCI	38	Verbal & Visual Indices	NR	0.66	0.75	0.87	0.45	0.72
*Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Version Three (ACE-III)*	Elamin 2016²⁰	31	NC	28	Total score	88	0.97	0.96	0.97	0.96	0.53
*Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS)*	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WMS-III General Memory Index	5th percentile	0.94	0.97	0.97	0.94	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WMS-III General Memory Index	10th percentile	0.97	0.91	0.92	0.97	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WMS-III Immediate Memory Index	5th percentile	0.85	1.00	1.00	0.87	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WMS-III Immediate Memory Index	10th percentile	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.94	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WMS-III Delayed Memory Index	5th percentile	0.88	0.97	0.97	0.89	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WMS-III Delayed Memory Index	10th percentile	0.97	0.97	0.97	0.97	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III IMI: simple difference	5th percentile	0.68	0.82	0.79	0.72	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III IMI: simple difference	10th percentile	0.74	0.82	0.80	0.76	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III IMI: GAI stratified difference	5th percentile	0.76	0.91	0.89	0.79	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III IMI: GAI stratified difference	10th percentile	0.79	0.91	0.90	0.81	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III IMI: predicted difference	5th percentile	0.79	0.94	0.93	0.82	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III IMI: predicted difference	10th percentile	0.88	0.91	0.91	0.88	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III GMI: simple difference	5th percentile	0.65	0.88	0.84	0.72	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III GMI: simple difference	10th percentile	0.79	0.85	0.84	0.80	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III GMI: GAI stratified difference	5th percentile	0.91	0.94	0.94	0.91	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III GMI: GAI stratified difference	10th percentile	0.91	0.88	0.88	0.91	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III GMI: predicted difference	5th percentile	0.91	0.89	0.89	0.91	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III GMI: predicted difference	10th percentile	0.91	0.85	0.86	0.90	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III DMI: simple difference	5th percentile	0.44	0.88	0.79	0.61	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III DMI: simple difference	10th percentile	0.53	0.85	0.78	0.64	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III DMI: GAI stratified difference	5th percentile	0.74	0.94	0.93	0.78	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III DMI: GAI stratified difference	10th percentile	0.88	0.85	0.85	0.88	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III DMI: predicted difference	5th percentile	0.79	0.88	0.87	0.81	0.50
	Lange 2006³⁵	34	NC	34	WAIS-III GAI, WMS-III DMI: predicted difference	10th percentile	0.88	0.88	0.88	0.88	0.50
*Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)*	Logsdon 1989³⁷	44	NC	54	WAIS-R Fuld Profile⁶⁹	Fuld criteria (Y/N)	0.07	0.93	0.45	0.55	0.45

: Abbreviations: ACE=Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination; ADAS-Cog=Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia; CBB=Cogstate Brief Battery; CERAD=Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; Comp=comparator; DMI=delayed memory index; DRS=Dementia Rating ability index; GMI=General Memory Index; IMI=immediate memory index; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control; NR=not reported; Scale; GAI=general NPV=negative predictive value; PPV=positive predictive value; RBANS= Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status; SE=sensitivity; SP=specificity; WAIS=Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WMS=Wechsler Memory Scale
*: indicates that values equal to or higher than the specified cut point indicate CATD
+: indicates that some PPV and NPV values were back-calculated

Appendix Table C.4Classification accuracy results for memory tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Memory Test	Author Year	CATD N	Comp Group	Comp N	Score (Subgroup)	Cut Point	SE	SP	PPV⁺	NPV⁺	CATD Base Rate
*List Learning Tests – Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog)*	Zainal 2016⁶⁸	64	NC	125	All Recall Trials & Recognition	14^*	0.77	0.98	0.89	0.96	0.34
	Zainal 2016⁶⁸	64	MCI	80	All Recall Trials & Recognition	14^*	0.76	0.85	0.97	0.35	0.44
*List Learning Tests – Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD)*	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Delayed Recall & Recognition	NR	1.00	0.92	0.92	0.89	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 1 (Mild CATD)	2	0.41	0.96	0.91	0.62	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 1 (Moderate CATD)	2	0.67	0.96	0.94	0.74	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 1 (Severe CATD)	2	0.92	0.96	0.96	0.92	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 2 (Mild CATD)	4	0.49	0.94	0.89	0.65	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 2 (Moderate CATD)	4	0.74	0.94	0.93	0.78	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 2 (Severe CATD)	4	0.96	0.94	0.94	0.96	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 3 (Mild CATD)	5	0.41	0.98	0.95	0.62	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 3 (Moderate CATD)	5	0.59	0.98	0.97	0.71	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	List Trial 3 (Severe CATD)	5	0.90	0.98	0.98	0.91	0.50
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Delayed Recall	4	0.88	0.84	0.51	0.97	0.16
	Chandler 2005¹³	95	NC	95	Delayed Recall	4	0.93	0.90	0.90	0.92	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Delayed Recall (Mild CATD)	3	0.86	0.94	0.93	0.87	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Delayed Recall (Moderate CATD)	3	0.96	0.94	0.94	0.96	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Delayed Recall (Severe CATD)	3	0.96	0.94	0.94	0.96	0.50
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Savings, Retention	65%	0.88	0.82	0.48	0.97	0.16
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Savings, Retention (Mild CATD)	47%	0.62	0.96	0.94	0.72	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Savings, Retention (Moderate CATD)	47%	0.93	0.96	0.96	0.93	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Savings, Retention (Severe CATD)	47%	0.82	0.96	0.95	0.84	0.50
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Recognition	17	0.60	0.91	0.56	0.92	0.16
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Recognition Yes (Mild CATD)	9	0.39	0.96	0.91	0.61	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Recognition Yes (Moderate CATD)	9	0.53	0.96	0.93	0.67	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Recognition Yes (Severe CATD)	9	0.73	0.96	0.95	0.78	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Recognition No (Mild CATD)	7	0.25	0.98	0.93	0.57	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Recognition No (Moderate CATD)	7	0.32	0.98	0.94	0.59	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Recognition No (Severe CATD)	7	0.48	0.98	0.96	0.65	0.50
	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Intrusion proportion	0	0.37	0.85	0.28	0.89	0.14
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	% Intrusions (Mild CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.33	0.94	0.85	0.58	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	% Intrusions (Moderate CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.33	0.94	0.85	0.58	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	% Intrusions (Severe CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.62	0.94	0.91	0.71	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 1 (Mild CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.14	0.96	0.78	0.53	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 1 (Moderate CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.16	0.96	0.80	0.53	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 1 (Severe CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.14	0.96	0.78	0.53	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 2 (Mild CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.33	0.78	0.60	0.54	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 2 (Moderate CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.27	0.78	0.55	0.52	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 2 (Severe CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.33	0.78	0.60	0.54	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 3 (Mild CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.20	0.94	0.77	0.54	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 3 (Moderate CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.35	0.94	0.85	0.59	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Trial 3 (Severe CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.39	0.94	0.87	0.61	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Delayed Recall (Mild CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.27	0.90	0.73	0.55	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Delayed Recall (Moderate CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.26	0.90	0.72	0.55	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Intrusions Delayed Recall (Severe CATD)	2 SDs^**	0.18	0.90	0.64	0.52	0.50
	Chandler 2005¹³	95	MCI	60	Delayed Recall	2	0.81	0.68	0.80	0.69	0.61
*List Learning Tests - Cogstate International Shopping List Test (ISLT)*	Thompson 2011⁵⁹	27	NC	156	Trials Total (at 95% specificity)	18	0.78	0.95	0.73	0.96	0.15
	Thompson 2011⁵⁹	27	NC	156	Trials Total (at 90% specificity)	20	0.82	0.90	0.59	0.97	0.15
*List Learning Tests - Delayed Word Recall (DWR)*	Knopman 1989³²	28	NC	55	Delayed Recall	2	0.89	0.98	0.96	0.95	0.34
*List Learning Tests – DemTect*	Kalbe 2004³¹	88	NC	97	Delayed Recall	NR	0.93	0.76	0.78	0.93	0.48
*List Learning Tests – Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT)*	Kuslansky 2004³⁴	57	NC	323	Trials Total	14	0.92	0.75	0.39	0.98	0.15
	De Jager 2003¹⁹	55	MCI	29	Trials Total	15	0.91	0.69	0.85	0.80	0.65
*List Learning Tests – Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB)*	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List A Immediate Recall	35	0.69	1.00	1.00	0.92	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List A Immediate Recall	40	0.85	0.90	0.69	0.96	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List B Immediate Recall	35	0.35	1.00	1.00	0.85	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List B Immediate Recall	44	0.85	0.79	0.52	0.95	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List A Short Delay Recall	35	0.85	0.97	0.88	0.96	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List A Short Delay Recall	37	0.92	0.97	0.89	0.98	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List A Long Delay Recall	35	0.81	0.98	0.91	0.95	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	NC	98	List A Long Delay Recall	40	0.92	0.97	0.89	0.98	0.21
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List A Immediate Recall	30	0.58	0.86	0.79	0.70	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List A Immediate Recall	35	0.69	0.66	0.65	0.70	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List B Immediate Recall	35	0.35	0.90	0.76	0.61	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List B Immediate Recall	41	0.65	0.72	0.68	0.70	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List A Short Delay Recall	30	0.73	0.83	0.79	0.77	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List A Short Delay Recall	35	0.85	0.62	0.67	0.82	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List A Long Delay Recall	35	0.81	0.52	0.60	0.75	0.47
	Gavett 2009²⁴	26	aMCI	29	List A Long Delay Recall	36	0.89	0.52	0.62	0.84	0.47
*List Learning Tests - Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS)*	Clark 2010¹⁵	73	aMCI	44	Savings, Retention	29.9%	0.90	0.72	0.84	0.82	0.62
*List Learning Tests – Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT)*	Grober 2008²⁶	35	NC	283	Free Recall	24	0.83	0.76	0.30	0.97	0.11
	Millar 2017⁴⁴	64	NC	519	Free Recall	NR	0.91	0.73	0.29	0.99	0.11
	Grober 2008²⁶	35	NC	283	Total Recall	44	0.71	0.94	0.59	0.96	0.11
*Prose Recall – Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS) Logical Memory (LM)*	Johnson 2003³⁰	31	NC	47	Veridical Reproduction	NR	0.84	0.87	0.81	0.89	0.40
	Johnson 2003³⁰	98	NC	82	Veridical Reproduction (very mild CATD)	NR	0.77	0.81	0.83	0.75	0.54
	Johnson 2003³⁰	31	NC	47	Veridical & Gist Recall	NR	0.77	0.89	0.82	0.85	0.40
	Johnson 2003³⁰	31	NC	47	Distortion of Text	NR	0.84	0.81	0.74	0.88	0.40
	Johnson 2003³⁰	98	NC	82	Distortion of Text (very mild CATD)	NR	0.75	0.81	0.83	0.73	0.54
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	27	NC	27	Delayed Recall	9	0.87	0.89	0.89	0.87	0.50
	Millar 2017⁴⁴	64	NC	519	Delayed Recall	NR	0.71	0.83	0.34	0.96	0.11
*Prose Recall – Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS)*	Clark 2010¹⁵	73	aMCI	44	Savings, Retention	59.9%	0.85	0.55	0.76	0.69	0.62
*Figure Recall - Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS) Visual Reproduction (VR)*	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Immediate Recall	8	0.90	0.79	0.45	0.98	0.16
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Delayed Recall	2	0.87	0.87	0.56	0.97	0.16
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	82	NC	82	Delayed Recall	3	0.87	0.86	0.86	0.87	0.50
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Savings, Retention	29%	0.74	0.93	0.67	0.95	0.16
	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Figural Intrusions	1^*	0.27	0.82	0.19	0.87	0.14
*Other Memory Tests – The Placing Test*	De Jager 2003¹⁹	40	MCI	28	Total	10	0.68	0.68	0.75	0.60	0.59
	De Jager 2003¹⁹	39	MCI	28	Objects	6	0.80	0.71	0.79	0.72	0.58
	De Jager 2003¹⁹	39	MCI	28	Faces	5	0.90	0.50	0.71	0.78	0.58
*Other Memory Tests - Wechsler Memory Scales (WMS) Logical Memory (LM) + Visual Reproduction (VR)*	Troster 1993⁶¹	58	NC	69	Savings, Retention	NR	0.88	0.99	0.99	0.91	0.46
*Other Memory Tests - Fuld Object Memory Evaluation (FOME)*	Loewenstein 2001³⁸	268	NC	144	Trials Total (age 59-68)	19	0.93	1.00	NA	NA	0.65
	Loewenstein 2001³⁸	268	NC	144	Trials Total (age 69-78)	17	0.94	1.00	NA	NA	0.65
	Loewenstein 2001³⁸	268	NC	144	Trials Total (age 69-78)	18	0.94	1.00	NA	NA	0.65
	Loewenstein 2001³⁸	268	NC	144	Trials Total (age 79-90)	18	0.95	0.94	NA	NA	0.65
*Other Memory Tests – Process Dissociation Procedure*	Millar 2017⁴⁴	64	NC	519	Recollection Estimate	NR	0.77	0.86	0.40	0.97	0.11

: Abbreviations: ADAS-Cog=Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale; aMCI=amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CERAD=Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia; CogState ISLT= Cogstate International Shopping List Test; Comp=comparator; DRS=dementia rating scale; DWR=Delayed Word Recall; FCSRT=Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test; FOME=Fuld Object Memory Evaluation; HVLT= Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; LM=logical memory; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NAB=Neuropsychological Assessment Battery; NC=normal control; NR=not reported; NPV=negative predictive value; PPV=positive predictive value; RBANS= Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status; SD=standard deviation; SE=sensitivity; SP=specificity; WMS=Wechsler Memory Scale; VR=visual reproduction
*: indicates that values equal to or higher than the specified cutpoint indicate CATD
**: indicates 2 standard deviations below the control mean
+: indicates that some PPV and NPV values were back-calculated

Appendix Table C.5Classification accuracy results for executive tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Executive Test	Author Year	CATD N	Comp Group	Comp N	Score (Subgroup)	Cut point	SE	SP	PPV⁺	NPV⁺	CATD Base Rate
*Trail Making Test (TMT) part B*	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Time (sec)	173^*	0.87	0.88	0.58	0.97	0.16
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	87	NC	87	Time (sec)	131^*	0.85	0.83	0.83	0.85	0.50
	Ashendorf 2008¹	57	MCI	200	Time (z score)	-1.0	0.53	0.57	0.26	0.81	0.22
	Ashendorf 2008¹	57	MCI	200	Errors	1 error^*	0.72	0.41	0.26	0.84	0.22
	Ashendorf 2008¹	57	MCI	200	Errors (1) AND Time (-1.0 z)	1^*, -1 z	0.44	0.67	0.27	0.81	0.22
	Ashendorf 2008¹	57	MCI	200	Errors (1) AND/OR Time (-1.0 z)	1^*, -1 z	0.81	0.31	0.25	0.85	0.22
*Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) Digit Symbol*	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Total score	33	0.95	0.67	0.35	0.99	0.16
*Graphic Pattern Generation Test (GPGT)*	Sunderaraman 2015⁵⁸	107	NC	162	Row 1 Unique Designs	15	0.81	0.36	0.46	0.74	0.40
*Graphic Pattern Generation Test (GPGT)*	Sunderaraman 2015⁵⁸	107	NC	162	Row 1 Perseverations	4	0.76	0.37	0.44	0.70	0.40
*Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)*	Bondi 1993²	87	NC	75	Categories	4	0.93	0.81	0.85	0.91	0.54
	Bondi 1993²	23	NC	75	Categories (mild CATD)	4	0.83	0.81	0.58	0.94	0.23
	Bondi 1993²	87	NC	75	Nonperseverative errors	16^*	0.58	0.84	0.81	0.64	0.54
	Bondi 1993²	23	NC	75	Nonperseverative errors (mild CATD)	16^*	0.48	0.84	0.48	0.84	0.23
	Bondi 1993²	87	NC	75	Perseverative errors	6^*	0.76	0.93	0.93	0.77	0.54
	Bondi 1993²	23	NC	75	Perseverative errors (mild CATD)	6^*	0.74	0.93	0.77	0.92	0.23

: Abbreviations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia; Comp=comparator; GPGT=Graphic Pattern Generation Test; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control; NPV=negative predictive value; PPV=positive predictive value; SE=sensitivity; SP=specificity; TMT=Trail Making Test; WAIR-R=Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised; WCST=Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
*: indicates that values equal to or higher than the specified cutpoint indicate CATD
+: indicates that some PPV and NPV values were back-calculated

Appendix Table C.6Classification accuracy results for language tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Language Test	Author Year	CATD N	Comp Group	Comp N	Score (Subgroup)	Cut point	SE	SP	PPV⁺	NPV⁺	CATD Base Rate
*Semantic (Category) Verbal Fluency (SVF)*	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Animals (mild CATD)	9	0.35	1.00	1.00	0.61	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Animals (moderate CATD)	9	0.49	1.00	1.00	0.66	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Animals (severe CATD)	9	0.94	1.00	1.00	0.94	0.50
	Connor 2005¹⁸	50	NC	50	Animals	12	0.88	0.86	0.86	0.88	0.50
	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Animals (DRS 101-105)	12	0.90	0.86	0.56	0.98	0.17
	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Animals (DRS 106-110)	12	1.00	0.86	0.59	1.00	0.17
	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Animals (DRS 111-115)	12	1.00	0.86	0.59	1.00	0.17
	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Animals (DRS 116-120)	12	0.70	0.86	0.50	0.93	0.17
	Connor 2005¹⁸	10	NC	50	Animals (DRS 121-125)	12	0.40	0.86	0.36	0.88	0.17
	Monsch 1992⁴⁶	89	NC	53	Animals	13	0.92	0.94	0.96	0.88	0.63
	Canning 2004¹¹	37	NC	46	Animals (mild CATD)	13	0.73	1.00	1.00	0.82	0.45
	Canning 2004¹¹	98	NC	46	Animals	14	0.87	0.96	0.98	0.78	0.68
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	Animals (mild CATD)	16	0.95	0.79	0.64	0.98	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	First names	15	0.94	0.87	0.92	0.90	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	First names (mild CATD)	17	0.91	0.83	0.68	0.96	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	43	NC	17	First names (males)	12	0.84	0.94	0.97	0.70	0.72
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	46	NC	36	First names (females)	16	0.96	0.92	0.94	0.94	0.56
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	Fruits	10	0.96	0.89	0.93	0.92	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	Fruits (mild CATD)	10	0.91	0.89	0.76	0.96	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	Vegetables	9	0.96	0.87	0.92	0.92	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	Vegetables (mild CATD)	10	1.00	0.79	0.66	1.00	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	Supermarket	15	0.92	0.96	0.98	0.88	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	Supermarket (mild CATD)	15	0.76	1.00	0.89	0.91	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	43	NC	17	Supermarket (males)	14	0.93	0.94	0.98	0.84	0.72
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	46	NC	36	Supermarket (females)	16	0.94	0.97	0.98	0.92	0.56
	Kalbe 2004³¹	88	NC	97	Supermarket	?	0.92	0.81	0.81	0.92	0.48
	Cerhan 2002¹²	40	NC	221	Total (animals, fruits, vegetables)	28	0.93	0.89	0.60	0.98	0.15
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	Total (animals, fruits, vegetables)	37	1.00	0.93	0.96	1.00	0.63
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	95	NC	95	Total (animals, fruits, vegetables)	37	0.96	0.88	0.89	0.96	0.50
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	Total (animals, fruits, vegetables; mild AD)	37	1.00	0.92	0.82	1.00	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	43	NC	17	Total (animals, fruits, vegetables; males)	24	0.84	1.00	1.00	0.71	0.72
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	36	NC	46	Total (animals, fruits, vegetables; females)	37	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.44
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Total Category (unspecified)	31	0.90	0.83	0.50	0.98	0.16
	Clark 2014¹⁶	41	NC	44	Combined correct, perservations, intrusions	NR	0.90	0.89	0.88	0.91	0.48
	Clark 2014¹⁶	41	NC	44	Combined correct, perseverations, intrusions, clustering, switching, ICA component scores	NR	0.93	0.95	0.95	0.94	0.48
*Phonemic (Letter) Verbal Fluency (PVF)*	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	A words	6	0.72	0.93	0.94	0.66	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	A words (mild CATD)	11	0.86	0.59	0.45	0.91	0.28
	Canning 2004¹¹	98	NC	46	A words	12	0.76	0.74	0.86	0.59	0.68
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	F words	8	0.79	0.87	0.91	0.71	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	F words (mild CATD)	8	0.67	0.87	0.67	0.87	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	S words	10	0.87	0.87	0.92	0.79	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	S words (mild CATD)	10	0.67	0.87	0.67	0.87	0.28
	Cerhan 2002¹²	40	NC	221	Total (C, F, L)	25	0.73	0.78	0.37	0.94	0.15
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	Total (F, A, S)	29	0.87	0.92	0.95	0.81	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	89	NC	53	Total (F, A, S)	30	0.89	0.85	0.91	0.82	0.63
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	21	NC	53	Total (F, A, S; mild CATD)	31	0.81	0.83	0.65	0.92	0.28
	Monsch 1992⁴⁵	43	NC	17	Total (F, A, S; males)	27	0.81	0.88	0.95	0.65	0.72
	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Total Letter (unspecified)	30	0.76	0.69	0.32	0.94	0.16
*Combined Semantic and Phonemic Verbal Fluency*	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Intrusion error proportion	1^*	0.39	0.87	0.33	0.90	0.14
	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Preservative error proportion	2^*	0.67	0.52	0.18	0.90	0.14
	Canning 2004¹¹	98	NC	46	Difference (animal - letter F)	0	0.53	0.96	0.97	0.49	0.68
*Boston Naming Test (BNT 15-item)*	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Total score (Mild CATD)	13	0.53	0.92	0.87	0.66	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Total score (Moderate CATD)	13	0.55	0.92	0.87	0.67	0.50
	Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	49	NC	49	Total score (Severe CATD)	13	0.84	0.92	0.91	0.85	0.50
*Boston Naming Test (BNT 30-item)*	Cahn 1995⁹	45	NC	238	Total score	22	0.75	0.85	0.49	0.95	0.16
	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Semantic naming errors	1^*	0.50	0.72	0.22	0.90	0.14
	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Lexical naming errors	1^*	0.74	0.70	0.28	0.94	0.14
	De Jager 2003¹⁹	36	MCI	27	Total score	21	0.64	0.81	0.82	0.63	0.57

: Abbreviations: BNT=Boston Naming Test; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia; Comp=comparator; DRS=dementia rating scale; ICA=independent component analysis; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control; NR=not reported; NPV=negative predictive value; PPV=positive predictive value; PVF=phonemic verbal fluency; SE=sensitivity; SP=specificity; SVF=semantic verbal fluency
*: indicates that values equal to or higher than the specified cutpoint indicate CATD
+: indicates that some PPV and NPV values were back-calculated

Appendix Table C.7Classification accuracy results for combination cognitive tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Combination Cognitive Test	Author Year	CATD N	Comp Group	Comp N	Score (Subgroup)	Cut Point	SE	SP	PPV⁺	NPV⁺	CATD Base Rate
*Supplementing the MMSE*	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	MMSE, CD (Shulman)	Fail both (23, 3^*)	0.40	1.00	1.00	0.63	0.50
	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	MMSE, CD (Sunderland)	Fail both (23, 8)	0.50	1.00	1.00	0.67	0.50
	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	MMSE, CD (Wolf-Klein)	Fail both (23, 8)	0.36	1.00	1.00	0.61	0.50
	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	MMSE, CD (Shulman)	Fail either (23, 3^*)	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.96	0.50
	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	MMSE, CD (Sunderland)	Fail either (23, 8)	0.86	0.96	0.96	0.87	0.50
	Brodaty 1997⁵	28	NC	28	MMSE, CD (Wolf-Klein)	Fail either (23, 8)	0.86	1.00	1.00	0.88	0.50
	Galasko 1990²³	50	NC	74	MMSE, PVF (FAS)	NR	1.00	0.99	0.98	1.00	0.40
	Galasko 1990²³	24	NC	74	MMSE, PVF (FAS)	NR	0.88	0.99	0.95	0.96	0.24
*Other Test Combinations*	Cahn 1997⁸	38	NC	236	Errors/intrusions (SVF, PVF, BNT-30, CERAD List)	>0.5 (logistic equation cutoff)	0.29	0.98	0.70	0.90	0.14
	Cahn 1995⁹	28	NC	233	TMT-B, CERAD List, BNT-30, WMS VR	>0.5 (logistic equation cutoff)	0.82	0.98	0.83	0.98	0.11
	Cahn 1995⁹	28	NC	233	TMT-B, CERAD List, BNT-30, WMS VR (+ age)	>0.5 (logistic equation cutoff)	0.79	0.97	0.76	0.97	0.11
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	93	NC	16	SVF, WMS VR	Fail both (39.5, 8.5)	0.96	0.93	0.99	0.80	0.85
	Salmon 2002⁵⁴	93	NC	16	SVF, DRS total	Fail both (39.5, 132.5)	0.95	0.94	0.99	0.76	0.85
	Grober 2008²⁷	34	NC	261	MIS, SVF animals	Fail either (4, 9)	0.91	0.81	0.38	0.99	0.12
	Storandt 1989⁵⁷	66	NC	83	WMS LM, WAIS DSy, BNT 60-item	≥0 (canonical variate)	0.95	1.00	1.00	0.96	0.44
	Gomez 2006²⁵	77	NC	76	WMS LM, WAIS DSy, BNT 60-item	NR	0.68	0.74	0.73	0.70	0.50
	Gomez 2006²⁵	77	NC	76	WMS LM, SVF animals	NR	0.78	0.74	0.75	0.77	0.50
	Welsh 1992⁶⁶	49	NC	49	CERAD List DR, BNT-15	NR	0.90	0.92	0.92	0.90	0.50
	Petersen 1994⁵⁰	106	NC	106	WAIS-R Moans PIQ and FCSRT FR trials total	NR	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.50

: Abbreviations: BNT=Boston Naming Test; CERAD= Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia; CD=clock drawing; Comp=comparator; DR=delayed recall; DRS=dementia rating scale; DSy=Digit Symbol; FCSRT=Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test; FR=free recall; LM=logical memory; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control; NR=not reported; NPV=negative predictive value; PIQ=performance intelligence quotient; PPV=positive predictive value; PVF=phonemic verbal fluency; SE=sensitivity; SP=specificity; SVF=semantic verbal fluency; WAIS=Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WMS=Wechsler Memory Scale; VR=visual reproduction; VRT=visual reproduction test
*: indicates that values equal to or higher than the specified cut point indicate CATD
+: indicates that some PPV and NPV values were back-calculated

Appendix Table C.8Cognitive studies: Participant characteristics by diagnostic group in eligible cognitive studies with low-medium risk of bias

Study	N	CATD		NC		MCI		Cognitive Tests
Ashendorf 2008¹	257	Age (yrs)	79.7	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	72.5	TMT B
		Education (yrs)	14.6	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	14.6
		Gender (% male)	58%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	41%
		Race (% white)	77% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	77% (all subjects)
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	24.2	MMSE	NA	MMSE	28.1
		CDR	≥1.0	CDR	NA	CDR	NR
Bondi 1993²	162	Age (yrs)	72.2	Age (yrs)	71.1	Age (yrs)	NA	WCST
		Education (yrs)	13.0	Education (yrs)	13.7	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	47%	Gender (% male)	36%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Self-Report	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	20.7	MMSE	28.9	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Brodaty 1997⁵	56	Age (yrs)	73.1	Age (yrs)	69.5	Age (yrs)	NA	CD MMSE & CD
		Education (yrs)	8.7	Education (yrs)	11.3	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	32%	Gender (% male)	25%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III-R, NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Unclear	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	19.5	MMSE	28.7	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Brown 2009⁶	376	Age (yrs)	69	Age (yrs)	NR (age-matched)	Age (yrs)	NA	TYM
		Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Medical history	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	22.5	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Buschke 1999⁷	472	Age (yrs)	81.1	Age (yrs)	79.3	Age (yrs)	NA	MIS
		Education (yrs)	11.3	Education (yrs)	12.2	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	33%	Gender (% male)	36%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	81% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	81% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III-R, NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Cahn 1995, 1996, 1997⁸^–¹⁰	283	Age (yrs)	83.6	Age (yrs)	78.4	Age (yrs)	NA	CD CERAD List WMS VR WAIS DSy TMT B BNT PVF, SVF Combinations
		Education (yrs)	13.8	Education (yrs)	13.8	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	60%	Gender (% male)	41%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Canning 2004¹¹	144	Age (yrs)	73	Age (yrs)	70.1	Age (yrs)	NA	PVF, SVF
		Education (yrs)	13.6	Education (yrs)	15	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	normal cognitive testing, MRI	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	23	MMSE	28.7	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Cerhan 2002¹²	261	Age (yrs)	77.3	Age (yrs)	76.1	Age (yrs)	NA	PVF, SVF
		Education (yrs)	12.4	Education (yrs)	13.7	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	43%	Gender (% male)	41%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Chandler 2005¹³	250	Age (yrs)	74.4	Age (yrs)	74.2	Age (yrs)	72.8	MMSE CERAD TS CERAD List
		Education (yrs)	13.6	Education (yrs)	15.3	Education (yrs)	14.8
		Gender (% male)	39%	Gender (% male)	40%	Gender (% male)	48%
		Race (% white)	100%	Race (% white)	100%	Race (% white)	100%
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria		Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	21.1	MMSE	28.6	MMSE	27.5
		CDR	1	CDR	0	CDR	NR
Chapman 2010¹⁴	133	Age (yrs)	75.8	Age (yrs)	70.3	Age (yrs)	NA	MMSE
		Education (yrs)	14.3	Education (yrs)	15.9	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	56%	Gender (% male)	40%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV-TR, NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Physician assessment	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	24.3	MMSE	28.64	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Clark 2010¹⁵	117	Age (yrs)	76.2	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	74.8	RBANS List RBANS Story
		Education (yrs)	12.8	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	13.9
		Gender (% male)	37%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	34%
		Race (% white)	91% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	91% (all subjects)
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup
		MMSE	21.79	MMSE	NA	MMSE	27
		CDR	4.4 (sum of boxes)	CDR	NA	CDR	1.4 (sum of boxes)
Clark 2014¹⁶	85	Age (yrs)	72.5	Age (yrs)	70.5	Age (yrs)	NA	SVF
		Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	14.4	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	63%	Gender (% male)	32%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	24.3	MMSE	29.3	MMSE	NA
		CDR	4.0 (SOB)	CDR	0.2 (SOB)	CDR	NA
Connor 2005¹⁸	100	Age (yrs)	73.3	Age (yrs)	73.7	Age (yrs)	NA	CD SVF
		Education (yrs)	12.6	Education (yrs)	13.1	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	21.3	MMSE	28.92	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
De Jager 2003¹⁹	84	Age (yrs)	77	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	76	CLOX HVLT BNT TPT
		Education (yrs)	12 (all subjects)	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	12 (all subjects)
		Gender (% male)	55%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	41%
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	NR
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	21	MMSE	NA	MMSE	28
		CDR	NR	CDR	NA	CDR	NR
Elamin 2016²⁰	59	Age (yrs)	62.6	Age (yrs)	66.6	Age (yrs)	NA	ACE-III
		Education (yrs)	46.7%<16, 26.7% 16-18, 16.7%>18	Education (yrs)	53.6%<16, 42.9% 16-18, 3.6%>18	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	48.4%	Gender (% male)	57.1%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	Full diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NR	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Esteban-Santillas 1998²¹	80	Age (yrs)	72	Age (yrs)	72	Age (yrs)	NA	CD
		Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	~50%	Gender (% male)	~50%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Screening test and staging	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	1	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Galasko 1990²³	148	Age (yrs)	71.3	Age (yrs)	69.7	Age (yrs)	NA	MMSE MMSE & PVF
		Education (yrs)	14.2	Education (yrs)	14.5	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	47%	Gender (% male)	37%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	20.47	MMSE	29	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Gavett 2009²⁴	153	Age (yrs)	80.6	Age (yrs)	71.5	Age (yrs)	76.1	NAB List
		Education (yrs)	14.7	Education (yrs)	16.5	Education (yrs)	14.7
		Gender (% male)	58%	Gender (% male)	67%	Gender (% male)	45%
		Race (% white)	89%	Race (% white)	83%	Race (% white)	83%
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup
		MMSE	23.1	MMSE	29.6	MMSE	28
		CDR	1.21	CDR	0.0	CDR	0.3
Gomez 2006²⁵	153	Age (yrs)	76.8	Age (yrs)	77	Age (yrs)	NA	Combination (WMS LM, WAIS digit symbol, BNT) Combination (WMS LM, SVF)
		Education (yrs)	14.3	Education (yrs)	14.9	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	47%	Gender (% male)	42%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	93% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	93% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA, DSM III-R	Dx Criteria	CDR	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	0.5	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Grober 2008}²⁶	318	Age (yrs)	65+	Age (yrs)	65+	Age (yrs)	NA	FCSRT free recall, FCSRT total recall
		Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	African American and Caucasian patients	Race (% white)	African American and Caucasian patients	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV, neurologist dx	Dx Criteria	Neuropsychological evaluation	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	18+	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	Most 0.5	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Grober 2008²⁷	295	Age (yrs)	NR for CATD	Age (yrs)	78.2	Age (yrs)	NA	Combination (MIS or SVF)
		Education (yrs)	NR for CATD	Education (yrs)	12.9	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NR for CATD	Gender (% male)	18%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	African American and Caucasian patients	Race (% white)	African American and Caucasian patients	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV and NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic battery, informant responses	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	18+	MMSE	27.4	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR for CATD	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Hollocks 2018²⁹	102	Age (yrs)	73.4	Age (yrs)	73.3	Age (yrs)	NA	BMET
		Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	49%	Gender (% male)	49%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV and ICD-10	Dx Criteria	Medical history	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	22.0	MMSE	28.3	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Johnson 2003³⁰	242	Age (yrs)	74.3 (both cohorts)	Age (yrs)	76.7 (both cohorts)	Age (yrs)	NA	WMS LM
		Education (yrs)	12.9 (both cohorts)	Education (yrs)	14.1 (both cohorts)	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	45% (cohort 1)	Gender (% male)	28% (cohort 1)	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV (cohort 1); DSM-III-R and NINCDS-ADRDA (cohort 2)	Dx Criteria	Neuro exam (both cohorts)	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	0.5 (both cohorts)	CDR	0.0 (both cohorts)	CDR	NA
Kalbe 2004³¹	185	Age (yrs)	73.3	Age (yrs)	70.2	Age (yrs)	NA	MMSE DemTect List SVF
		Education (yrs)	9.8	Education (yrs)	11.4	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	40%	Gender (% male)	28%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	24.1	MMSE	28.5	MMSE	NA
		CDR	1.0-2.0	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Knopman 1989³²	83	Age (yrs)	74	Age (yrs)	73.5	Age (yrs)	NA	DWR List
		Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	12	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	36%	Gender (% male)	45.5%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Self-Report	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	23.4	MMSE	28.7	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Kuslansky 2002³³	240	Age (yrs)	77.2	Age (yrs)	78.9	Age (yrs)	NA	MIS
		Education (yrs)	11.6	Education (yrs)	12.6	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	43%	Gender (% male)	35%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	61%	Race (% white)	73%	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III-R, NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	1.2	CDR	0.2	CDR	NA
Kuslansky 2004³⁴	380	Age (yrs)	81.7	Age (yrs)	78.6	Age (yrs)	NA	MMSE HVLT List
		Education (yrs)	11.8	Education (yrs)	12.9	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	33%	Gender (% male)	40%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	65%	Race (% white)	65%	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Self-report	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	22.4	MMSE	26.1	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Lange 2006³⁵	68	Age (yrs)	73	Age (yrs)	72.9	Age (yrs)	NA	WMS-III GMI, WMS-III IMI, WMS-III DMI, WAIS-III GAI
		Education (yrs)	14.5	Education (yrs)	14.2	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	55.9%	Gender (% male)	55.9%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	91.2%	Race (% white)	91.2%	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	18-23 (or >95 DRS)	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Lee 1996³⁶	60	Age (yrs)	72.4	Age (yrs)	67.7	Age (yrs)	NA	CD
		Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	33%	Gender (% male)	36%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Self-Report	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	20.9	MMSE	27.9	MMSE	NA
		CDR	0.98	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Loewenstein 2001³⁸	412	Age (yrs)	77.7	Age (yrs)	73.8	Age (yrs)	NA	FOME
		Education (yrs)	12.1	Education (yrs)	14.1	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	35%	Gender (% male)	38%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	>18	MMSE	≥24	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Logsdon 1989³⁷	98	Age (yrs)	70	Age (yrs)	68	Age (yrs)	NA	WAIS-R Fuld Profile
		Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	53%	Gender (% male)	43%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA, DSM III	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	23	MMSE	30	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Maruff 2013⁴⁰	710	Age (yrs)	79.3	Age (yrs)	69.5	Age (yrs)	NA	CBB
		Education (yrs)	Median 12	Education (yrs)	Median 12	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	49%	Gender (% male)	42%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Neuropsych testing	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	19.8	MMSE	28.7	MMSE	NA
		CDR	5.9 (sum of boxes)	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Mendez 1992⁴²	72	Age (yrs)	70.7	Age (yrs)	69.3	Age (yrs)	NA	CD
		Education (yrs)	12	Education (yrs)	12.1	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	39%	Gender (% male)	38%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Medical history, cognitive screening	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	13-23	MMSE	≥28	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Mendiondo 2003⁴³	1,534	Age (yrs)	72.8 (CERAD) 62.1 (UK-ADRC)	Age (yrs)	68.6 (CERAD) 73.1 (UK-ADRC)	Age (yrs)	NA	BAS
		Education (yrs)	13.4 (CERAD) 12.9 (UK-ADRC)	Education (yrs)	13.8 (CERAD) 15.8 (UK-ADRC)	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	41% (CERAD) 28.4% (UK-ADRC)	Gender (% male)	34% (CERAD) 36.6% (UK-ADRC)	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	87% (CERAD) 98.4% (UK-ADRC)	Race (% white)	94% (CERAD) 98.9% (UK-ADRC)	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA (CERAD) NR (UK-ADRC)	Dx Criteria	No dementia dx, screen, no other neurological conditions (CERAD) Diagnostic workup (UK-ADRC)	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	22.6 (CERAD) NR (UK-ADRC)	MMSE	28.9 (CERAD) NR (UK-ADRC)	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR (CERAD) 0.5 or 1.0 (UKADRC)	CDR	NR (CERAD) NR (UK-ADRC)	CDR	NA
Millar 2017⁴⁴	583	Age (yrs)	75.0	Age (yrs)	68.9	Age (yrs)	NA	PDP memory task, FCSRT, WMS LM II
		Education (yrs)	15.1	Education (yrs)	15.6	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	58%	Gender (% male)	38%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	CDR	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	26.2	MMSE	29	MMSE	NA
		CDR	0.5	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Monsch 1992⁴⁵	142	Age (yrs)	72.1	Age (yrs)	71.2	Age (yrs)	NA	PVF, SVF
		Education (yrs)	13.5	Education (yrs)	13.6	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	48%	Gender (% male)	32%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	98%	Race (% white)	98%	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III and NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Medical history	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	18	MMSE	28.8	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Monsch 1995⁴⁶	641	Age (yrs)	74.2 (both cohorts)	Age (yrs)	75.9 (both cohorts)	Age (yrs)	NA	DRS
		Education (yrs)	13.2 (both cohorts)	Education (yrs)	14.2 (both cohorts)	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	50% (both cohorts)	Gender (% male)	41% (both cohorts)	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	majority white (cohort 1)	Race (% white)	Majority white (cohort 1)	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III and NINCDS-ADRDA (both cohorts)	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup (both cohorts)	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Morgan 2010⁴⁸	238	Age (yrs)	77.8	Age (yrs)	76.5	Age (yrs)	76.5	RBANS
		Education (yrs)	3.5* (3=12 years; 4=13-15 years)	Education (yrs)	3.8* (3=12 years; 4=13-15 years)	Education (yrs)	3.4* (3=12 years; 4=13-15 years)
		Gender (% male)	37%	Gender (% male)	37%	Gender (% male)	37%
		Race (% white)	87% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	87% (all subjects)	Race (% white)	87% (all subjects)
		Dx Criteria	Cognitive scores	Dx Criteria	Self-Report	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	22.9	MMSE	NR	MMSE	26.2
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NR
Parsey 2011⁴⁹	66	Age (yrs)	74.1	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	70.5	CLOX
		Education (yrs)	15.7	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	16.2
		Gender (% male)	61%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	39%
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	NR
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA	MMSE	NR
		CDR	1.0	CDR	NA	CDR	0.5
Petersen 1994⁵⁰	212	Age (yrs)	80.7	Age (yrs)	80.2	Age (yrs)	NA	Brief Battery (WIAS-R PIQ and FCSRT trials total free recall)
		Education (yrs)	11.8	Education (yrs)	12.6	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NR	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA, DSM III-R	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	20.9	MMSE	28.5	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Quarmley 2017⁵¹	496	Age (yrs)	NA (subsample data reported)	Age (yrs)	NA (subsample data reported)	Age (yrs)	NA (subsample data reported)	MoCA
		Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	NA	MMSE	NA	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NA	CDR	NA	CDR	NA
Roalf 2017⁵³	587	Age (yrs)	75.9	Age (yrs)	70.3	Age (yrs)	73	MoCA, MMSE
		Education (yrs)	13.4	Education (yrs)	17	Education (yrs)	14.7
		Gender (% male)	35%	Gender (% male)	33%	Gender (% male)	48
		Race (% white)	71%	Race (% white)	79%	Race (% white)	78%
		Dx Criteria	DSM-IV-TR	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	20	MMSE	29	MMSE	26
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NR
Salmon 2002⁵⁴	196	Age (yrs)	71.6	Age (yrs)	AD Match (2 years)	Age (yrs)	NA	DRS WMS LM WMS VR TMT B SVF Combinations
		Education (yrs)	14.2	Education (yrs)	AD Match (3years)	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	49%	Gender (% male)	AD Match	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	AD Match	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III/DSM-III-R, NINCDS-ADRDA, pathological or clinical verification	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	25.6	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Solomon 1998⁷⁰	120	Age (yrs)	77.6	Age (yrs)	77.5	Age (yrs)	NA	7MS
		Education (yrs)	13.3	Education (yrs)	14.4	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	33%	Gender (% male)	35%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Medical history, functionally independent	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	21	MMSE	28.7	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Springate 2014⁵⁶	147	Age (yrs)	73.9	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	72.9	DRS
		Education (yrs)	12.5	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	13.3
		Gender (% male)	43%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	43%
		Race (% white)	94%	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	98%
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup
		MMSE	23.1	MMSE	NA	MMSE	26.8
		CDR	0.9	CDR	NA	CDR	0.5
Storandt 1989⁵⁷	149	Age (yrs)	72.2	Age (yrs)	71.6	Age (yrs)	NA	Combination (WMS LM, WAIS DSy, BNT)
		Education (yrs)	12.8 (all subjects)	Education (yrs)	12.8 (all subjects)	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	44%	Gender (% male)	39%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	100%	Race (% white)	100%	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	CDR and physician diagnosis	Dx Criteria	CDR	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	1.0	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Sunderaraman 2015⁵⁸	269	Age (yrs)	77.6	Age (yrs)	75.7	Age (yrs)	NA	GPGT
		Education (yrs)	15.4	Education (yrs)	16.0	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	43%	Gender (% male)	34%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Interview, cognitive screen	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	≥17	MMSE	≥27	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Thompson 2011⁵⁹	183	Age (yrs)	73.5	Age (yrs)	73.1	Age (yrs)	NA	Cogstate ISLT
		Education (yrs)	11.7	Education (yrs)	12.1	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	58%	Gender (% male)	53%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Cognitive testing, neuro exam	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	22.3	MMSE	29.1	MMSE	NA
		CDR	4.9 (sum of boxes)	CDR	0 (sum of boxes)	CDR	NA
Tremont 2011⁶⁰	150	Age (yrs)	74.1	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	72.9	MCAS
		Education (yrs)	12.5	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	13.3
		Gender (% male)	42%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	42%
		Race (% white)	94%	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	98%
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA	MMSE	NA
		CDR	0.5-1.0	CDR	NA	CDR	0.5
Troster 1993⁶¹	127	Age (yrs)	72.9	Age (yrs)	74.4	Age (yrs)	NA	WMS LM & VR
		Education (yrs)	13.2	Education (yrs)	13.5	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	47%	Gender (% male)	41%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Medical history	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	NR	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Trzepacz 2015⁶²	399	Age (yrs)	77.6	Age (yrs)	NA	Age (yrs)	74.2	MoCA
		Education (yrs)	15.8	Education (yrs)	NA	Education (yrs)	16.2
		Gender (% male)	67%	Gender (% male)	NA	Gender (% male)	61%
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA	Race (% white)	NR
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	NA	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	20.3	MMSE	NA	MMSE	27.8
		CDR	0.5-1.0	CDR	NA	CDR	0.5
Tuokko 1992⁶³	120	Age (yrs)	70.6	Age (yrs)	71.3	Age (yrs)	NA	CD
		Education (yrs)	10.7	Education (yrs)	13.1	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	33%	Gender (% male)	40%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III-R and NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Interview, medical questionnaire	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	15.5	MMSE	NR	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Uhlmann 1991⁶⁴	209	Age (yrs)	76 (all subjects)	Age (yrs)	76 (all subjects)	Age (yrs)	NA	MMSE
		Education (yrs)	19% middle, 30% HS, 38% college, 13% graduate (all subjects)	Education (yrs)	19% middle, 30% HS, 38% college, 13% graduate (all subjects)	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	42% (all subjects)	Gender (% male)	42% (all subjects)	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	97%	Race (% white)	95%	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	DSM-III, NINCDS/ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Unclear	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	19	MMSE	27	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Welsh 1991, 1992⁶⁵^, ⁶⁶	196	Age (yrs)	71.1	Age (yrs)	71.1	Age (yrs)	NA	CERAD List BNT SVF CERAD List & BNT
		Education (yrs)	13.8	Education (yrs)	14	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	51%	Gender (% male)	51%	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup, free of cognitive impairment	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	20.0	MMSE	28.9	MMSE	NA
		CDR	1.3	CDR	0	CDR	NA
Wolf-Klein 1989⁶⁷	251	Age (yrs)	79	Age (yrs)	77	Age (yrs)	NA	CD
		Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NR	Education (yrs)	NA
		Gender (% male)	30% (all subjects)	Gender (% male)	30% (all subjects)	Gender (% male)	NA
		Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NR	Race (% white)	NA
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Diagnostic Workup	Dx Criteria	NA
		MMSE	12.8	MMSE	27.7	MMSE	NA
		CDR	NR	CDR	NR	CDR	NA
Zainal 2016⁶⁸	269	Age (yrs)	72.2	Age (yrs)	61.8	Age (yrs)	66.4	ADAS-Cog ADAS-Cog List
		Education (yrs)	6.0	Education (yrs)	11.7	Education (yrs)	10.9
		Gender (% male)	63%	Gender (% male)	31%	Gender (% male)	50%
		Race (% white)	77% Chinese	Race (% white)	90% Chinese	Race (% white)	89% Chinese
		Dx Criteria	NINCDS-ADRDA	Dx Criteria	Staging	Dx Criteria	Petersen criteria
		MMSE	22.3	MMSE	29.1	MMSE	27.4
		CDR	0.5-1.0	CDR	0	CDR	0.5

: Abbreviations: ACE=Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination; ADAS-Cog=Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale; BAS=Brief Alzheimer’s Screen; BMET=Brief Memory and Executive Test; BNT=Boston Naming Test; CATD=clinical Alzheimer-type dementia; CBB=Cogstate Brief Battery; CD=Clock drawing; CDR=Clinical Dementia Rating; CERAD=Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease neuropsychological battery; DMI=Delayed Memory Index; DRS=Dementia Rating Scale; DSM=Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; DSy=Digit Symbol; FCSRT=Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test; FOME=Fuld Object Memory Evaluation; GAI=General Ability Index; GMI=General Memory Index; GPGT=Graphic Pattern Generation Test; HS=high school; HVLT=Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; IMI=Immediate Memory Index; ISLT=International Shopping List Test; LM=Logical Memory; MCAS=Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen; MCI=Mild Cognitive Impairment; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE=Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA=Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NA=not applicable; NAB=Neuropsychological Assessment Battery; NC=normal cognition; NINCDS-ADRDA=National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders; NR=not reported; PDP=Process Dissociation Procedure; PIQ=Performance Intelligent Quotient; PVF=phonemic verbal fluency; RBANS=Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status; SVF=semantic verbal fluency; TMT B=Trail Making Test Part B; TPT=The Placing Test; TYM=Test Your Memory; VR=visual reproduction; WAIS=Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WCST=Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; WMS=Wechsler Memory Scale

Appendix Table C.9Brief cognitive tests and scores represented in extracted studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Test, estimated administration time	Score	Range^*	Better performance
7 Minute Screen (7MS), 5-10 min	Total score	0-no ceiling	Higher
Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Exam (ACE), 15-20 min	Total score	0-100	Higher
Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog), 30 min	11-item total score	0-70	Lower
	12-item total score	0-80	Lower
	12-item list learning score	0-32	Lower
Boston Naming Test (BNT)	15-item total score, 5-10 min	0-15	Higher
	30-item total score, 15 min	0-30	Higher
	30-item semantic errors	0-30	Lower
	30-item lexical errors	0-30	Lower
Brief Alzheimer’s Screen (BAS), < 5 min	Total score	0-no ceiling	Higher
Brief Memory and Executive Test (BMET), 10 min	Total score	0-16	Higher
Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) neuropsychological battery, 30 min	CERAD total score, 20 min	0-100	Higher
	List learning delayed recall	0-10	Higher
	List learning % retention (savings)	0-100	Higher
	List learning recognition scores	Varies	Higher
	List learning intrusion scores	Varies	Lower
Clock Drawing, multiple versions, 5 min	Rouleau quantitative scale	10	Higher
	Sunderland	10	Higher
	Mendez	20	Higher
	Shulman	5	Higher
	Tuokko	--	Lower
	Watson	0-7	Lower
	Wolf-Klein	10	Higher
	CLOX 1 (draw)	15	Higher
	CLOX 2 (copy)	15	Higher
Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB), 15 min	Learning & Working Memory composite	M 100 ±10	Higher
Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB), 15 min	Attention & Psychomotor composite	M 100 ±10	Higher
Cogstate International Shopping List Test (ISLT), 20-25 min	Trials total	0-36	Higher
	Delayed recall	0-12	Higher
Dementia Rating Scale (DRS), multiple versions, 30 min	Total score	0-144	Higher
	Attention	0-37	Higher
	Initiation/Perseveration	0-37	Higher
	Construction	0-6	Higher
	Conceptualization	0-39	Higher
	Memory	0-25	Higher
Delayed Word Recall (DWR), 5-10 min	Total score	0-10	Higher
DemTect, 8-10 min	Delayed recall	0-18	Higher
Free and Cued Selective Reminding (FCSR), 15 min	Free recall	0-48	Higher
Free and Cued Selective Reminding (FCSR), 15 min	Total recall	0-48	Higher
Fuld Object Memory Evaluation (OME), 15 min	3 trials total	0-30	Higher
Graphic Pattern Generation (GPG)	Row 1 perseverations	0-9	Lower
Graphic Pattern Generation (GPG)	Row 1 unique designs	0-10	Higher
Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT), multiple versions, 30+ min	Trials total, 10-15 min	0-36	Higher
Memory Impairment Screen (MIS), < 5 min	Total score	0-8	Higher
Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), 5-10 min	Total score	0-30	Higher
Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen (MCAS), 15 min	Total score	0-no ceiling	Higher
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), 10 min	Total score	0-30	Higher
Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB) List Learning subtest, 20-25 min	List A immediate recall	M 50 ±10	Higher
	List B immediate recall	M 50 ±10	Higher
	List A short delayed recall	M 50 ±10	Higher
	List A long delayed recall	M 50 ±10	Higher
Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), 30 min	Verbal index	M 100 ±15	Higher
	Visual index	M 100 ±15	Higher
	% Retention scores (savings)	0-100	Higher
Test Your Memory (TYM), < 5 min (scoring time)	Total score	0-50	Higher
Trail Making Test (TMT), part B, 5 min	TMT B time (seconds)	0-300	Lower
Trail Making Test (TMT), part B, 5 min	TMT B errors	0-5	Lower
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), multiple versions	Fuld profile, 30 min	Yes/No	--
	Digit Symbol total, < 5 min	Varies	Higher
Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS), multiple versions, 30-40 min	General Memory index	M 100 ±15	Higher
	Immediate Memory index	M 100 ±15	Higher
	Delayed Memory index	M 100 ±15	Higher
	Logical Memory I & II	Varies	Higher
	Visual Reproduction I & II	Varies	Higher
	% Retention scores (savings)	0-100	Higher
	Intrusion error scores	0-no ceiling	Lower
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), 20-30 min	Categories achieved	0-6	Higher
	Perseverative errors	count or %	Lower
	Non-perseverative errors	count or %	Lower
The Placing Test, 6 min	Total score	0-20	Higher
	Objects	0-10	Higher
	Faces	0-10	Higher
Verbal fluency, < 5 min	Semantic (category)	0-no ceiling	Higher
Verbal fluency, < 5 min	Phonemic (letter)	0-no ceiling	Higher

*: Scores presented as M ±SD indicate a normed score with a known distribution (Standard score, T score, etc.)

Figure C.1 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of MMSE in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.1Sensitivity results of MMSE in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.2 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of MMSE in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.2Specificity results of MMSE in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.3 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of MIS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.3Sensitivity results of MIS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; NC=normal control

Figure C.4 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of MIS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.4Specificity results of MIS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; NC=normal control

Figure C.5 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of MoCA in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.5Sensitivity results of MoCA in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; MoCA=Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NC=normal control

Figure C.6 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of MoCA in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.6Specificity results of MoCA in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; MoCA=Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NC=normal control

Figure C.7 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of 7MS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.7Sensitivity results of 7MS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; 7MS=7 Minute Screen

Figure C.8 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of 7MS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.8Specificity results of 7MS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; 7MS=7 Minute Screen

Figure C.9 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of MCAS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.9Sensitivity results of MCAS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: aMCI=amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCAS=Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen; NC=normal control

Figure C.10 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of MCAS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.10Specificity results of MCAS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: aMCI=amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCAS=Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen; NC=normal control

Figure C.11 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of BAS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.11Sensitivity results of BAS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: BAS=Brief Alzheimer Screen; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

$Figure C.12 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of BAS\ in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.$

Figure C.12Specificity results of BAS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: BAS=Brief Alzheimer Screen; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.13 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of clock drawing(Rouleau scoring) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.13Sensitivity results of clock drawing tests (Rouleau scoring) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; DRS=Dementia Rating Scale; NC=normal control

Figure C.14 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of clock drawing (Rouleau scoring) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.14Specificity results of clock drawing tests (Rouleau scoring) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; DRS=Dementia Rating Scale; NC=normal control

Figure C.15 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of clock drawing (Shulman scale) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.15Sensitivity results of clock drawing tests (Shulman scale) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control

Figure C.16 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of clock drawing (Shulman scale) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.16Specificity results of clock drawing tests (Shulman scale) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control

Figure C.17 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of clock drawing (Sunderland scale) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.17Sensitivity results of clock drawing tests (Sunderland scale) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control

Figure C.18 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of clock drawing (Sunderland scale) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.18Specificity results of clock drawing tests (Sunderland scale) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control

Figure C.19 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of other clock drawing tests in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.19Sensitivity results of other clock drawing tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CDIS=Clock Drawing Interpretation Scale; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control; RCS=Rapid Cognitive Screen; VRT=Visual Retention Test

Figure C.20 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of other clock drawing tests in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.20Specificity results of other clock drawing tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Figure C.21 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of CLOX in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.21Sensitivity results of CLOX in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment

Figure C.22 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of CLOX in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.22Specificity results of CLOX in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment

Figure C.23 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of DRS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.23Sensitivity results of DRS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; DRS=Dementia Rating Scale; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.24 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of DRS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.24Specificity results of DRS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; DRS=Dementia Rating Scale; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.25 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of ADAS-Cog in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.25Sensitivity results of ADAS-Cog in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: ADAS-Cog= Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.26 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of ADAS-Cog in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.26Specificity results of ADAS-Cog in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: ADAS-Cog= Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.27 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of CSBB in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.27Sensitivity results of CSBB in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CSBB=Cogstate Brief Battery; NC=normal control

Figure C.28 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of CSBB in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.28Specificity results of CSBB in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CSBB=Cogstate Brief Battery; NC=normal control

Figure C.29 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of CERAD in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.29Sensitivity results of CERAD in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CERAD= Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; MCI=Mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.30 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of CERAD in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.30Specificity results of CERAD in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CERAD= Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease; MCI=Mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.31 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of RBANS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.31Sensitivity results of RBANS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=Mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score; RBANS= Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status

Figure C.32 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of RBANS in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.32Specificity results of RBANS in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Figure C.33 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of ADAS-Cog combined scores in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.33Sensitivity results of ADAS-Cog Combined Scores in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: ADAS-Cog=Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment-Cognitive Scale; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=Mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.34 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of ADAS-Cog combined scores in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.34Specificity results of ADAS-Cog Combined Scores in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: ADAS-Cog=Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment-Cognitive Scale; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=Mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.35 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of WMS Indices in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.35Sensitivity results of WMS Indices in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; DMI=Delayed Memory Index; GAI=General Ability Index; GMI=General Memory Index; IMI=Immediate Memory Index; NC=normal control; WAIS=Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WMS=Wechsler Memory Scale

Figure C.36 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of WMS Indices in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.36Specificity results of WMS Indices in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Figure C.37 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of CogState ISLT in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.37Sensitivity results of CogState ISLT in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CogState ISLT= Cogstate International Shopping List Test; NC=normal control

Figure C.38 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of CogState ISLT in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.38Specificity results of CogState ISLT in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CogState ISLT= Cogstate International Shopping List Test; NC=normal control

Figure C.39 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of FC SRT in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.39Sensitivity results of FCSRT in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; FCSRT=Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.40 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of FC SRT in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.40Specificity results of FCSRT in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; FCSRT=Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.41 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of RBANS (% retention) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.41Sensitivity results of RBANS (% retention) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: aMCI=amnestic cognitive impairment; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; RBANS= Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status

Figure C.42 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of RBANS (% retention) in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.42Specificity results of RBANS (% retention) in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: aMCI=amnestic cognitive impairment; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; RBANS= Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status

Figure C.43 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of WMS logical memory in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.43Sensitivity results of WMS logical memory in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score; WMS=Weschler Memory Scale

Figure C.44 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of WMS logical memory in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.44Specificity results of WMS logical memory in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score; WMS=Weschler Memory Scale

Figure C.45 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of figure recall in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.45Sensitivity results of figure recall in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.46 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of rigure recall in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.46Specificity results of figure recall in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.47 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of NAB list learning in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.47Sensitivity results of NAB list learning in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: aMCI=amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NAB=Neuropsychological Assessment Battery; NC=normal control

Figure C.48 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of NAB list learning in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.48Specificity results of NAB list learning in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: aMCI=amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NAB=Neuropsychological Assessment Battery; NC=normal control

Figure C.49 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of TPT in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.49Sensitivity results of TPT in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=Mild Cognitive Impairment; TPT=The Placing Test

Figure C.50 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of TPT in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.50Specificity results of TPT in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=Mild Cognitive Impairment; TPT=The Placing Test

Figure C.51 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of Trail Making Test part B in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.51Sensitivity results of Trail Making Test part B in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.52 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of Trail Making Test part B in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.52Specificity results of Trail Making Test part B in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control

Figure C.53 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of Graphic Pattern Generation test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.53Sensitivity results of Graphic Pattern Generation test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.54 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of Graphic Pattern Generation test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.54Specificity results of Graphic Pattern Generation test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.55 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of Wisconsin Card Sorting test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.55Sensitivity results of Wisconsin Card Sorting test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.56 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of Wisconsin Card Sorting test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.56Specificity results of Wisconsin Card Sorting test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.57 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of semantic fluency in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.57Sensitivity results of semantic fluency in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.58 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of semantic fluency in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.58Specificity results of semantic fluency in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.59 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of phonemic fluency in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.59Sensitivity results of phonemic fluency in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.60 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of phonemic fluency in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.60Specificity results of phonemic fluency in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.61 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of mixed fluency in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.61Sensitivity results of mixed fluency in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.62 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of mixed fluency in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.62Specificity results of mixed fluency in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; NC=normal control

Figure C.63 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of Boston Naming Test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.63Sensitivity results of Boston Naming Test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.64 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of Boston Naming Test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.64Specificity results of Boston Naming Test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score

Figure C.65 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of brief stand-alone test + another cognitive test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.65Sensitivity results of brief stand-alone test + another cognitive test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control;

Figure C.66 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of brief stand-alone test + another cognitive test in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.66Specificity results of brief stand-alone test + another cognitive test in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; MIS=Memory Impairment Screen; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control

Figure C.67 details a forest plot that plots the sensitivity of other combination tests in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.67Sensitivity results of other combination tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Abbrevations: BNT=Boston Naming Test; CATD=Clinical Alzheimer’s type dementia; CERAD=Constortium to Establish Registry for Alzheimer’s Diease; DR=Delayed Recall; DRS=Dementia Rating Scale; Dsy=Digit Symbol; FCSRT=Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test; LM=Logical Memory; MCI=mild cognitive impairment; MMSE=Mini Mental State Examination; NC=normal control; OS=optimal score; PIQ=Performance Intelligence Quotient; TMT-B=Trail Making Test part B; VR=visual reproduction; WAIS=Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WMS=Wechsler Memory Scale

Figure C.68 details a forest plot that plots the specificity results of other combination tests in eligible and low-moderate risk of bias studies.

Figure C.68Specificity results of other combination tests in eligible studies with low-moderate risk of bias

Bookshelf ID: NBK556571

Contents

< Prev Next >

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
Fink HA, Hemmy LS, Linskens EJ, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer’s-Type Dementia: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2020 Apr. (Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 223.) Appendix C, Key Question 1: Accuracy, Comparative Accuracy, and Harms of Cognitive Tests for Identifying CATD.
PDF version of this title (14M)
Disable Glossary Links

Other titles in this collection

AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

Recent Activity

Clear Turn Off Turn On

Key Question 1: Accuracy, Comparative Accuracy, and Harms of Cognitive Tests for...
Key Question 1: Accuracy, Comparative Accuracy, and Harms of Cognitive Tests for Identifying CATD - Diagnosis and Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer’s-Type Dementia: A Systematic Review

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on