Mapping the evidence on the use of Alzheimer’s disease staging criteria (2011–2026): a scoping review to prioritise action for guidelines – protocol
18 affiliations
- 1Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- 2Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- 3Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- 4Academic Internal Medicine Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- 5USF Health Byrd Alzheimer’s Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
- 6College of Medicine Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
- 7Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York, USA
- 8Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- 9Wisconsin Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- 10Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
- 11Memory Clinic, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
- 12Department of Neurology, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
- 13Fein Memory & Aging Center, Departments of Neurology, Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
- 14Department of Community Health Systems, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
- 15Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- 16Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York, USA
- 17Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- 18Jones Learning Center, Virginia Mason Franciscan Health, Seattle, Washington, USA
Abstract
Introduction: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) staging has evolved rapidly with the introduction of biological definitions, expanded biomarker modalities and updated diagnostic frameworks. Multiple staging criteria are now used across research and clinical settings yet their real-world application remains unclear. Differences in healthcare infrastructure, biomarker availability and study purpose may influence how these criteria are implemented. This scoping review aims to systematically map how AD biological and clinical staging criteria have been used since 2011, characterise their application across study types and settings, and identify gaps that may inform future research and guideline development.
Methods and analysis: We will conduct a scoping review using the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and enhanced by Levac et al, and will report it according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO and Scopus supplemented by forward-citation and backward-citation tracking using Web of Science. The review will begin in October 2026, with the baseline review complete by March 2027 and will be maintained as a living review. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts, extract data using a piloted charting form and resolve disagreements through discussion or a third reviewer. We will map study characteristics, staging criteria used, biomarker and clinical measures applied, outcomes assessed and how studies have examined progression or transitions between stages. We will also conduct a gap analysis to identify underexplored populations, outcomes and applications, with an expert panel convened by the Alzheimer’s Association reviewing and validating the identified gaps. Findings will be summarised descriptively using tables, figures and visualisations.
Ethics and dissemination: This review does not require ethics approval because it uses published data. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations, webinars and plain-language summaries for people living with AD and their families. We will also share results with guideline developers and other stakeholders to support future evidence-based recommendations.
Related
- Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Physiotherapists’ Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and Return to Sport Criteria after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Qualitative Study in Austria.
- Effects of the physical activity guidelines with or without the dietary guidelines on cardiometabolic disease risk among pre- and post-menopausal women: study protocol for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (Ms. FIT) RCT
- Thrombophilia Testing After VTE and in Related Clinical Contexts: Is It Necessary, and Does It Change Management? Appraisal of Evidence, Guidelines, and Clinical Yield
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of performance of the Sapporo criteria, the Revised Sapporo criteria, and the 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria for patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A protocol
- Derivation of a blood count-based machine learning model to prioritise sequencing for high-risk clonal haematopoiesis: a retrospective cohort study
BibTeX
@article{islam2026mapping,
title = {{Mapping the evidence on the use of Alzheimer’s disease staging criteria (2011–2026): a scoping review to prioritise action for guidelines – protocol}},
author = {Nazmul Islam and Farid Foroutan and Theodore M Johnson and Amanda G Smith and Clifford R Jack and Ozioma C Okonkwo and Sebastian Palmqvist and Jeremy J Pruzin and Gil Rabinovici and Jennifer Serafin and Reisa A Sperling and Eric Tangalos and Sheena K Aurora and Maria C Carillo and Heather Snyder and Simin Mahinrad and Rachel J Couban and Mary B Mcateer and Sarah Pahlke and Malavika P Tampi},
journal = {BMJ Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121221},
url = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121221},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Mapping the evidence on the use of Alzheimer’s disease staging criteria (2011–2026): a scoping review to prioritise action for guidelines – protocol
AU - Nazmul Islam
AU - Farid Foroutan
AU - Theodore M Johnson
AU - Amanda G Smith
AU - Clifford R Jack
AU - Ozioma C Okonkwo
AU - Sebastian Palmqvist
AU - Jeremy J Pruzin
AU - Gil Rabinovici
AU - Jennifer Serafin
AU - Reisa A Sperling
AU - Eric Tangalos
AU - Sheena K Aurora
AU - Maria C Carillo
AU - Heather Snyder
AU - Simin Mahinrad
AU - Rachel J Couban
AU - Mary B Mcateer
AU - Sarah Pahlke
AU - Malavika P Tampi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - BMJ Open
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121221
UR - https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121221
AB - Introduction: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) staging has evolved rapidly with the introduction of biological definitions, expanded biomarker modalities and updated diagnostic frameworks. Multiple staging criteria are now used across research and clinical settings yet their real-world application remains unclear. Differences in healthcare infrastructure, biomarker availability and study purpose may influence how these criteria are implemented. This scoping review aims to systematically map how AD biological and clinical staging criteria have been used since 2011, characterise their application across study types and settings, and identify gaps that may inform future research and guideline development. Methods and analysis: We will conduct a scoping review using the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and enhanced by Levac et al, and will report it according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO and Scopus supplemented by forward-citation and backward-citation tracking using Web of Science. The review will begin in October 2026, with the baseline review complete by March 2027 and will be maintained as a living review. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts, extract data using a piloted charting form and resolve disagreements through discussion or a third reviewer. We will map study characteristics, staging criteria used, biomarker and clinical measures applied, outcomes assessed and how studies have examined progression or transitions between stages. We will also conduct a gap analysis to identify underexplored populations, outcomes and applications, with an expert panel convened by the Alzheimer’s Association reviewing and validating the identified gaps. Findings will be summarised descriptively using tables, figures and visualisations. Ethics and dissemination: This review does not require ethics approval because it uses published data. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations, webinars and plain-language summaries for people living with AD and their families. We will also share results with guideline developers and other stakeholders to support future evidence-based recommendations.
SN - 2044-6055
SN - 2044-6055
ER -