Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Meta-analysis finds 58% prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities in LMIC patients

Meta-analysis finds 58% prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities in LMIC patients
Photo by Pawel Czerwinski / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Interpret the 58% MRI abnormality prevalence in LMIC dementia patients with caution due to high heterogeneity.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the prevalence and patterns of dementia-relevant structural brain MRI abnormalities in adults aged 50 years or older with suspected or confirmed dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The analysis included 23 studies contributing data from 2,513 participants. The comparator was not explicitly reported, and the review focused on brain MRI as part of the diagnostic evaluation.

The primary finding was that dementia-relevant structural MRI abnormalities were present in 1,248 of 2,513 participants, yielding a pooled prevalence estimate of 58% (95% CI 43% to 72%). Secondary outcomes, including MRI protocols and the incremental diagnostic contribution of MRI beyond cognitive screening, were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneous reference standards and incomplete reporting. Safety and tolerability data were not reported.

Key limitations include substantial statistical heterogeneity (I²=95%), a wide prediction interval (8% to 96%), marked between-study variability, and a high risk of bias in the included studies. The authors note that diagnostic-accuracy outcomes could not be meta-analyzed quantitatively. The pooled estimate should be interpreted as a descriptive summary of heterogeneous study-level findings rather than a precise population parameter.

For practice, the review suggests structured visual ratings of MRI may add aetiologic specificity beyond cognitive screening in LMIC settings. However, clinicians should recognize the high uncertainty in the prevalence estimate due to the heterogeneity of the underlying evidence. The findings highlight a need for more standardized diagnostic studies in these populations.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 2,513
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up600.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the prevalence and patterns of dementia-relevant structural brain MRI abnormalities in adults with suspected or confirmed dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to summarise MRI protocols and the incremental diagnostic contribution of MRI beyond cognitive screening. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO (January 1990-27 January 2025), plus reference list screening and targeted manual searches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational or diagnostic-accuracy studies from World Bank-defined LMICs including adults (≥50 years) with suspected or confirmed dementia who underwent brain MRI as part of diagnostic evaluation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. Random-effects models pooled prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities; diagnostic-accuracy outcomes were synthesised narratively due to heterogeneous reference standards and incomplete reporting. RESULTS: 39 LMIC studies were included; 23 studies (2513 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities (defined as ≥1 clinically relevant structural abnormality per study definition) were present in 1248/2513 participants. The pooled prevalence of dementia-relevant MRI abnormalities was 58% (95% CI 43% to 72%), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=95%) and a wide prediction interval (8-96%), indicating marked between-study variability; this estimate should be interpreted as a descriptive summary of study-level proportions rather than a precise population parameter. CONCLUSIONS: Brain MRI frequently demonstrates dementia-relevant pathology in LMIC clinical cohorts, usually with mixed neurodegenerative-vascular patterns. Structured visual ratings may add aetiologic specificity beyond cognitive screening, but pooled estimates should be interpreted as summaries of heterogeneous study-level findings rather than precise population parameters, given high heterogeneity and risk of bias. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024510241.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.