2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Investigation of Inflammation in Lewy Body Dementia: A Systematic Scoping Review

      , , , ,
      International Journal of Molecular Sciences
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Inflammatory mechanisms are increasingly recognized as important contributors to the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases, including Lewy body dementia (LBD). Our objectives were to, firstly, review inflammation investigation methods in LBD (dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia) and, secondly, identify alterations in inflammatory signals in LBD compared to people without neurodegenerative disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. A systematic scoping review was performed by searching major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PSYCHInfo) to identify relevant human studies. Of the 2509 results screened, 80 studies were included. Thirty-six studies analyzed postmortem brain tissue, and 44 investigated living subjects with cerebrospinal fluid, blood, and/or brain imaging assessments. Largely cross-sectional data were available, although two longitudinal clinical studies investigated prodromal Lewy body disease. Investigations were focused on inflammatory immune cell activity (microglia, astrocytes, and lymphocytes) and inflammatory molecules (cytokines, etc.). Results of the included studies identified innate and adaptive immune system contributions to inflammation associated with Lewy body pathology and clinical disease features. Different signals in early and late-stage disease, with possible late immune senescence and dystrophic glial cell populations, were identified. The strength of these associations is limited by the varying methodologies, small study sizes, and cross-sectional nature of the data. Longitudinal studies investigating associations with clinical and other biomarker outcomes are needed to improve understanding of inflammatory activity over the course of LBD. This could identify markers of disease activity and support therapeutic development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references173

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

            The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                IJMCFK
                International Journal of Molecular Sciences
                IJMS
                MDPI AG
                1422-0067
                August 2023
                July 28 2023
                : 24
                : 15
                : 12116
                Article
                10.3390/ijms241512116
                f2a1ba27-b937-4775-a6cc-cafabc7b99df
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article