Larner 2019.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	755 consecutive new outpatient referrals to a dedicated cognitive function clinic based at a regional neuroscience centre, located in the northwest of the UK. Patients were seen between June 2014 and December 2018. There were no specific exclusion criteria, excepting patients with an established diagnosis of dementia.
Patient characteristics and setting	755 new outpatient referrals were recruited from a dedicated cognitive function clinic in the northwest of the United Kingdom. The diagnosis was made by an experienced clinician using diagnostic criteria. The results of the mini‐ACE were not used in the final diagnosis. No further information on the diagnostic process was provided in this publication; however the process was detailed as follows in a previous report (Williamson 2018): the diagnosis was made by an experienced clinician, based upon patient interview, collateral history (if available), neuroimaging, and neuropsychological assessment. 114 patients were diagnosed with dementia, 22 with MCI, and the remaining 419 patients with subjective memory complaints. The median age of the whole sample was 60 years, and 47% of the sample were female. No further information on participant characteristics was provided. The prevalence of dementia in the sample was 15%, and 29% for MCI. The sources of the referrals were not specified.
Index tests	The index test was the mini‐ACE. There was no information on the training or expertise of the person administrating the mini‐ACE. There were no details provided on the administration of the mini‐ACE. Test thresholds of 21 and 25 were pre‐specified but optimal cut‐offs were also calculated using study data.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: dementia and MCI Reference standards: DSM‐IV (dementia) or Petersen criteria (MCI).
Flow and timing	755 patients were recruited. Dropout rates were not reported. No information on the time interval between the test and the reference standard; however in a previous report (Williamson 2018) the tests were completed on the same day. Information on the true positive and negative values were not provided in the original publication and were calculated from sensitivity and specificity data reported in the publication.
Comparative
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Yes
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Were sufficient data on ACE‐III or mini‐ACE application given for the test to be repeated in an independent study?	No
		Unclear	Unclear
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Yes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Yes
Were sufficient information on the method of dementia/MCI assessment given for the assessment to be repeated in an independent study?	No
		High	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Unclear
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Unclear
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
Did all patients receive a reference standard?	Unclear
		Unclear