Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24558437›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

A systematic review of biomarkers for disease progression in Alzheimer's disease.

David J M McGhee, Craig W Ritchie, Paul A Thompson, David E Wright, John P Zajicek, Carl E Counsell

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Assessing clinical progression measures in Alzheimer's disease trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Outcome measures for Alzheimer's disease: A global inter-societal Delphi consensus.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Periodic Variation of AAK1 in an AβJournal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2018
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. The usual suspects: why techno-fixing dementia is flawed.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David J M McGheeDivision of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Craig W RitchieCentre for Mental Health, Imperial College London, London, England, United Kingdom.
Paul A ThompsonCentre for Health and Environmental Statistics, Plymouth University, Plymouth, England, United Kingdom.
David E WrightCentre for Health and Environmental Statistics, Plymouth University, Plymouth, England, United Kingdom.
John P ZajicekClinical Neurology Research Group, Plymouth University, Plymouth, England, United Kingdom.
Carl E CounsellDivision of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing surrogate biomarkers for disease progression as endpoints in neuroprotective clinical trials may help differentiate symptomatic effects of potential neuroprotective agents from true slowing of the neurodegenerative process. A systematic review was undertaken to determine what biomarkers for disease progression in Alzheimer's disease exist and how well they perform.

methodsMEDLINE and Embase (1950-2011) were searched using five search strategies. Abstracts were assessed to identify papers meriting review in full. Studies of participants with probable Alzheimer's disease diagnosed by formal criteria were included. We made no restriction on age, disease duration, or drug treatment. We only included studies with a longitudinal design, in which the putative biomarker and clinical measure were both measured at least twice, as this is the only appropriate study design to use when developing a disease progression biomarker. We included studies which attempted to draw associations between the changes over time in the biomarker used to investigate disease progression and a clinical measure of disease progression.

resultsFifty-nine studies were finally included. The commonest biomarker modality examined was brain MRI (17/59, 29% of included studies). Median follow-up in included studies was only 1.0 (IQR 0.8-1.7) year and most studies only measured the putative biomarker and clinical measure twice. Included studies were generally of poor quality with small numbers of participants (median 31 (IQR 17 to 64)), applied excessively restrictive study entry criteria, had flawed methodologies and conducted overly simplistic statistical analyses without adjusting for confounding factors.

conclusionsWe found insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any biomarker as an outcome measure for disease progression in Alzheimer's disease trials. However, further investigation into the efficacy of using MRI measurements of ventricular volume and whole brain volume appeared to be merited. A provisional 'roadmap' to improve the quality of future disease progression biomarker studies is presented.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionAlzheimer DiseaseBiomarkersHumansBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID24558437
PMCPMC3928315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.