SynthesisAmerican journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias2014
Clinical significance in dementia research: a review of the literature.
Synthesis in American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Setting individualised goals for people living with dementia and their family carers: A systematic review of goal-setting outcome measures and their psychometric properties.Dementia (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Cognitive rehabilitation for people with mild to moderate dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Clinical importance in Alzheimer's disease: effects of anchor agreement and disease severity.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024Article
- Understanding the impact related to lifestyle interventions for people with dementia: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- Patterns of Symptom Tracking by Caregivers and Patients With Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Building clinically relevant outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2021Article
- New directions in clinical trials for frontotemporal lobar degeneration: Methods and outcome measures.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2020Article
- Large Sample Size Fallacy in Trials About Antipsychotics for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Dementia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- A narrative review on cervical interventions in adults with chronic whiplash-associated disorder.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2018Review
- Exploration of verbal repetition in people with dementia using an online symptom-tracking tool.International psychogeriatrics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical research traditionally relies on measures of statistical significance to assess the strength of evidence while less attention is paid to the practical import of the results. The objective of this study was to provide a critical overview of the current approaches to measuring clinical significance in dementia research and to provide suggestions for future research. A systematic search was conducted of Medline and Embase for original, English-language, peer-reviewed articles published before July 2012. A total of 18 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 used multiple approaches to measure clinical significance. In all, 5 articles used expert opinion as anchors; 4 also used distribution-based approaches. In all, 8 articles used Goal Attainment Scaling; 7 of these also relied on clinician-based impressions of change. Another 3 articles used only clinical global impressions of change, 1 article used changes in symptomatology, and another used the value from literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.