Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22590475›Full record

ArticleDementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra2012

Why is it so difficult to evaluate nursing interventions in dementia?

Christoph Schwarzbach, Hans Förstl, Marc Nocon, Thomas Mittendorf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christoph SchwarzbachCenter for Health Economics, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Berlin, Germany.
Hans Förstl
Marc Nocon
Thomas Mittendorf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two recent health technology assessment (HTA) reports published in Germany focused on non-pharmacological interventions for patients with dementia. One of the major results was the poor methodological quality of the studies in this field. This paper concisely presents the main quantitative and qualitative findings of the HTA report published by the German Agency for HTA at the Institute of Medical Information and Documentation (dahta@DIMDI), followed by a detailed discussion of the major methodological problems observed for the inclusion criteria, interventions, the setting, number of patients included, duration of observation, comparators, clinical endpoints, health economics, and, most obvious, the impossibility of blinding and eliminating placebo effects for future clinical studies. We conclude with several suggestions addressing these challenges for future research in this field.

Indexed as

DementiaHealth technology assessmentNon-pharmacological studiesNursing interventions

Identifiers

PMID22590475
PMCPMC3347873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.