Chételat 2003.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling	19 right‐handed participants with a memory complaint, but preserved activities of daily living and 15 healthy controls were prospectively recruited. Sampling procedure not described. We only included data on performance of the index test to discriminate between people with MCI who converted to dementia and those who remained stable. Exclusion criteria: neurologic, medical, or psychiatric disorder. No further information. People with medical disorders unrelated to cause of memory impairment may have been excluded.
Patient characteristics and setting	19 participants with MCI, diagnosed with the Petersen 2001 criteria were recruited at baseline. No further information. Demographic characteristics reported on 17 MCI participants, who had a follow‐up. Inclusion criteria: no neurologic, medical, or psychiatric disorder; modified Hachinski score ≥ 2; age > 55 years; education > 7 years; episodic memory performance > 1.5 SD below age‐matched normal mean in Rey Figure delayed recall or 1 subscore of Grober‐Buschke test; Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke, Alzheimer's Disaese and related Disorders Association criteria for Alzheimer's disease not met; MMSE ≥ 24 and normal cognitive functions apart from episodic memory, including the Stroop test, visuospatial function, imitation and production of gestures, and language. Gender: 8 men; 9 women. MCI‐non‐converters: 5M, 5F; MCI‐converters: 3M, 4F Age: Total: mean 69.9 ± 6.7; MCI‐non‐converters: mean 67.8 ± 7; MCI‐converters: mean 73 ± 5.1 APOE 4: not reported MMSE: ≥ 24 (no further details) Education: not reported Sources of referral: not reported Sources of recruitment: not reported
Index tests	¹⁸F‐FDG PET scan At entry each participant underwent an ¹⁸F‐FDG PET study using the ECAT HR+ device (CTI, Knoxville, TN). The ¹⁸F‐FDG uptake datasets were handled with SPM99. SPM maps were threshold at Z > 3.09; only decreases were assessed. 2 cerebral regions were mainly evaluated: the right temporo‐parietal and posterior cingulate. The participants were classified according to the adjusted regional activity values in the referred areas. Threshold: not prespecified: thresholding was set at 80% of whole brain mean of control participants. Index test was conducted before follow‐up.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia Reference standard: NINCDS‐ADRDA criteria Clinicians conducting follow‐up were blinded to the ¹⁸F‐FDG PET results.
Flow and timing	Duration of follow‐up: 18 months. Participants were evaluated every 6 months for an 18‐month period At baseline 19 MCI. At follow‐up: 17 participants: 7 rapid converters (MCI‐ADD); 10 non‐converters (MCI‐MCI) (p 1377) Number included in analysis: 17 TP = 7; FP = 0; FN = 0; TN = 10 (right temporo‐parietal region) (Figure, p 1376) TP = 7; FP = 1; FN = 0; TN = 9 (posterior cingulate region) (Figure, p 1376) Loss to follow‐up: 2 participants were excluded post hoc: 1 refused repetitive cognitive testing, and another turned out to have depression (did not meet inclusion criteria)
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?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
		High	Low
DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	No
		High	Low
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
		Low	Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
		Low