Perani 2016.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	86 early dementia patients were recruited. Patients were referred to the memory clinics of the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy). They underwent clinical evaluation. Separate data were available for the performance of the biomarkers in distinguishing AD from MCI. We did not include data on performance of the index test to discriminate AD participants from MCI. Exclusion criteria: reported
Patient characteristics and setting	The sample considered in the review comprises of 75 patients with dementia: 47 AD, 14 FTLD and 14 DLB. All patients underwent clinical assessment. Sex: 26 males and 21 females for AD; 8 males and 6 females for FTLD; 11 males and 3 females for DLB Age (SD) (y): 66±6.8 for AD; 65± 7.3 for FTLD; 72± 6 for DLB Disease duration (y): 39 ± 24 for AD; 32±19 for FTLD; 42±22 for mixed dementia
Index tests	Patients gave CSF samples. The samples were stored at ‐80°C and analysed. Abeta42 was measured using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, obtained from Innogenetics NV, Gent, Belgium. Threshold: 500 pg/mL; pre‐specified Were the index test results reported without knowledge of the reference standard? [Yes]
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: Alzheimer's disease dementia (1. differential diagnosis of AD from FTLD and DLB; 2. differential diagnosis of AD from FTLD only) Reference standards: NINCDS‐ADRDA criteria for Alzheimer's disease dementia McKeith criteria for DLB and Rascovsky et al., 2013 for FTLD.
Flow and timing	All biomarker data were collected within 3 months from the baseline clinical visit.
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?	Yes
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?			Unclear
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?			Unclear
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Unclear risk