Pozueta 2011.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Consecutive sample of 115 MCI participants was recruited from a memory clinic between 2007 and 2008 Exclusion criteria: participants who met criteria for dementia (DSM‐IV), AD (NINCDS‐ADRDA), depressive episode (IDC‐10), subjects with significant cerebrovascular disease (Hachinski scale score 0.4), and those with any other medical or psychiatric identifiable cause accounting for their complaints
Patient characteristics and setting	A total of 115 participants with MCI, diagnosed initially with the Petersen 2004 criteria were recruited from a memory clinic Demographic data reported for 105 participants (Table 1, p3) Gender: total: 65 F, 40 M; converters: 30 F, 20 M; non‐converters: 35 F, 20 M Age: converters 75.94 ± 6.05 years; non‐converters: 72.93 ± 7.3 years APOE4 carrier: converters 27; non‐converters 16 MMSE: converters 25.92 ± 1.88; non‐converters 27.78 ± 1.55 Education: not reported Sources of referral: not reported Sources of recruitment: memory clinic of the University Hospital
Index tests	Mini‐Mental state Examination (MMSE): no details about version, who administered and interpreted the test and scoring systems are provided. Used threshold was not pre‐specified
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia Reference standards for identifying the target conditions at follow‐up were not reported
Flow and timing	Duration of follow‐up: 2 years At follow‐up: 50 AD dementia; 2 LBD; 2 VaD, 55 MCI‐S (MCI stable, non‐converters) Number included in analyses: 105 (excluding 2 patients with LBD; 2 with VD) Number included in analyses: 105 Conversion to AD Sensitivity: 64%; Specificity: 80%; cut‐off: ≤ 26 (Table 2, p3) (disease positive = 59; disease negative = 292) TP = 32; FP = 11; FN = 44; TN = 18 (calculated in RevMan5) Loss to follow‐up: 6 participants did not complete the first year of follow‐up, so they were not included in analyses
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
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the assessment used for clinical diagnosis of dementia acceptable?	Unclear
Was clinical assessment for dementia performed without knowledge of the MMSE results?	Unclear
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High 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 MMSE and the reference standard?	Yes
Did all participants receive the same reference standard?	Unclear
Were all participants included in the final analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk