Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Objective: Classification guides the surgical approach and predicts prognosis. However, existing classifications of spinal schwannomas often result in a high ‘unclassified’ rate. Here, we aim to develop a new comprehensive classification for spinal schwannomas based on their presumed origin. We compared the new classification with the existing classifications regarding the rate of ‘unclassified’. Finally, we assessed the surgical strategies, outcomes, and complications according to each type of the new classification. Methods: A new classification with 9 types was created by analyzing the anatomy of spinal nerves and the origin of significant tumor portions and cystic components in preoperative magnetic resonance images. A total of 482 patients with spinal schwannomas were analyzed to compare our new classification with the existing classifications. We defined ‘unclassified’ as the inability to classify a patient with spinal schwannoma using the classification criteria. Surgical approaches and outcomes were also aligned with our new classification. Results: Our classification uniquely reported no ‘unclassified’ cases, indicating full applicability. Also, the classification has demonstrated usefulness in predicting the surgical outcome with the approach planned. Gross total removal rates reached 88.0% overall, with type 1 and type 2 tumors at 95.3% and 96.0% respectively. The approach varied with tumor type, with laminectomy predominantly used for types 1, 2, and 9, and facetectomy with posterior fixation used for type 3 tumors. Conclusion The new classification for spinal schwannomas based on presumed origin is applicable to all spinal schwannomas. It could help plan a surgical approach and predict its outcome, compared with existing classifications.

Objective: Classification guides the surgical approach and predicts prognosis. However, existing classifications of spinal schwannomas often result in a high ‘unclassified’ rate. Here, we aim to develop a new comprehensive classification for spinal schwannomas based on their presumed origin. We compared the new classification with the existing classifications regarding the rate of ‘unclassified’. Finally, we assessed the surgical strategies, outcomes, and complications according to each type of the new classification. Methods: A new classification with 9 types was created by analyzing the anatomy of spinal nerves and the origin of significant tumor portions and cystic components in preoperative magnetic resonance images. A total of 482 patients with spinal schwannomas were analyzed to compare our new classification with the existing classifications. We defined ‘unclassified’ as the inability to classify a patient with spinal schwannoma using the classification criteria. Surgical approaches and outcomes were also aligned with our new classification. Results: Our classification uniquely reported no ‘unclassified’ cases, indicating full applicability. Also, the classification has demonstrated usefulness in predicting the surgical outcome with the approach planned. Gross total removal rates reached 88.0% overall, with type 1 and type 2 tumors at 95.3% and 96.0% respectively. The approach varied with tumor type, with laminectomy predominantly used for types 1, 2, and 9, and facetectomy with posterior fixation used for type 3 tumors. Conclusion The new classification for spinal schwannomas based on presumed origin is applicable to all spinal schwannomas. It could help plan a surgical approach and predict its outcome, compared with existing classifications.

Objective: Classification guides the surgical approach and predicts prognosis. However, existing classifications of spinal schwannomas often result in a high ‘unclassified’ rate. Here, we aim to develop a new comprehensive classification for spinal schwannomas based on their presumed origin. We compared the new classification with the existing classifications regarding the rate of ‘unclassified’. Finally, we assessed the surgical strategies, outcomes, and complications according to each type of the new classification. Methods: A new classification with 9 types was created by analyzing the anatomy of spinal nerves and the origin of significant tumor portions and cystic components in preoperative magnetic resonance images. A total of 482 patients with spinal schwannomas were analyzed to compare our new classification with the existing classifications. We defined ‘unclassified’ as the inability to classify a patient with spinal schwannoma using the classification criteria. Surgical approaches and outcomes were also aligned with our new classification. Results: Our classification uniquely reported no ‘unclassified’ cases, indicating full applicability. Also, the classification has demonstrated usefulness in predicting the surgical outcome with the approach planned. Gross total removal rates reached 88.0% overall, with type 1 and type 2 tumors at 95.3% and 96.0% respectively. The approach varied with tumor type, with laminectomy predominantly used for types 1, 2, and 9, and facetectomy with posterior fixation used for type 3 tumors. Conclusion The new classification for spinal schwannomas based on presumed origin is applicable to all spinal schwannomas. It could help plan a surgical approach and predict its outcome, compared with existing classifications.

Objective: Classification guides the surgical approach and predicts prognosis. However, existing classifications of spinal schwannomas often result in a high ‘unclassified’ rate. Here, we aim to develop a new comprehensive classification for spinal schwannomas based on their presumed origin. We compared the new classification with the existing classifications regarding the rate of ‘unclassified’. Finally, we assessed the surgical strategies, outcomes, and complications according to each type of the new classification. Methods: A new classification with 9 types was created by analyzing the anatomy of spinal nerves and the origin of significant tumor portions and cystic components in preoperative magnetic resonance images. A total of 482 patients with spinal schwannomas were analyzed to compare our new classification with the existing classifications. We defined ‘unclassified’ as the inability to classify a patient with spinal schwannoma using the classification criteria. Surgical approaches and outcomes were also aligned with our new classification. Results: Our classification uniquely reported no ‘unclassified’ cases, indicating full applicability. Also, the classification has demonstrated usefulness in predicting the surgical outcome with the approach planned. Gross total removal rates reached 88.0% overall, with type 1 and type 2 tumors at 95.3% and 96.0% respectively. The approach varied with tumor type, with laminectomy predominantly used for types 1, 2, and 9, and facetectomy with posterior fixation used for type 3 tumors. Conclusion The new classification for spinal schwannomas based on presumed origin is applicable to all spinal schwannomas. It could help plan a surgical approach and predict its outcome, compared with existing classifications.

Objective: Classification guides the surgical approach and predicts prognosis. However, existing classifications of spinal schwannomas often result in a high ‘unclassified’ rate. Here, we aim to develop a new comprehensive classification for spinal schwannomas based on their presumed origin. We compared the new classification with the existing classifications regarding the rate of ‘unclassified’. Finally, we assessed the surgical strategies, outcomes, and complications according to each type of the new classification. Methods: A new classification with 9 types was created by analyzing the anatomy of spinal nerves and the origin of significant tumor portions and cystic components in preoperative magnetic resonance images. A total of 482 patients with spinal schwannomas were analyzed to compare our new classification with the existing classifications. We defined ‘unclassified’ as the inability to classify a patient with spinal schwannoma using the classification criteria. Surgical approaches and outcomes were also aligned with our new classification. Results: Our classification uniquely reported no ‘unclassified’ cases, indicating full applicability. Also, the classification has demonstrated usefulness in predicting the surgical outcome with the approach planned. Gross total removal rates reached 88.0% overall, with type 1 and type 2 tumors at 95.3% and 96.0% respectively. The approach varied with tumor type, with laminectomy predominantly used for types 1, 2, and 9, and facetectomy with posterior fixation used for type 3 tumors. Conclusion The new classification for spinal schwannomas based on presumed origin is applicable to all spinal schwannomas. It could help plan a surgical approach and predict its outcome, compared with existing classifications.

Background: and Purpose: Dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s dementia (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), pose diagnostic challenges. This review examines the effectiveness of 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET) in differentiating these subtypes for precise treatment and management. Methods: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted using databases like PubMed and Embase to identify studies on the diagnostic utility of 18 F-FDG PET in dementia. The search included studies up to November 16, 2022, focusing on peer-reviewed journals and applying the goldstandard clinical diagnosis for dementia subtypes. Results: From 12,815 articles, 14 were selected for final analysis. For AD versus FTD, the sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.98) and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). In the case of AD versus DLB, 18F-FDG PET showed a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). Lastly, when differentiating AD from non-AD dementias, the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91) and the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91). The studies mostly used case-control designs with visual and quantitative assessments. Conclusions 18 F-FDG PET exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating dementia subtypes, particularly AD, FTD, and DLB. This method, while not a standalone diagnostic tool, significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy in uncertain cases, complementing clinical assessments and structural imaging.