Bousiges 2016.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	A total of 151 patients were selected between January 2013 and January 2015. Sampling procedure: Not reported Separate data were available for the performance of biomarkers in distinguishing probable AD and probable DLB as well as mixed diagnosis of ADD and DLB with the other diagnostic groups. In accordance with inclusion criteria in the current review we only included data to differentiate between ADD and DLB with dementia diagnoses.
Patient characteristics and setting	The sample considered in the review comprised of 51 participants, 31 ADD and 20 DLB. Diagnosis was established double‐blinded to biomarker results by clinicians and the biologist. Sex: 12 males and 19 females for ADD; 14 males and 6 females for DLB Age mean (SD) (y): 67.2±9.3 for ADD; 68.8±9.7 for DLB. MMSE: 20.2±4.7 for ADD; 21±4.7 for DLB . Disease duration (y): not reported Sources of recruitment: The tertiary memory clinic of Strasbourg University Hospital
Index tests	Patients gave CSF samples. The samples were collected in polypropylene tubes, centrifuged, aliquoted, and stored at ‐80°C and analysed. Abeta42 was measured using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, obtained from Innogenetics NV, Gent, Belgium. Threshold: 500ng/L, pre‐specified Were the index test results reported without knowledge of the reference standard? Not reported
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Alzheimer's disease dementia (differential diagnosis of AD from DLB) Reference standards: McKhann's criteria and Duboi's criteria for ADD. Diagnosis for DLB was established on the McKeith's and DSM‐V criteria. Clinicians were blinded to biomarker results.
Flow and timing	The interval between established clinical diagnosis and CSF sample collection was not reported.
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
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Unclear
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Yes
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	No
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Unclear
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Unclear risk