Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27239511›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2015

Scientific and ethical features of English-language online tests for Alzheimer's disease.

Julie M Robillard, Judy Illes, Marcel Arcand, B Lynn Beattie, Sherri Hayden, Peter Lawrence, Joanna McGrenere, Peter B Reiner, Dana Wittenberg, Claudia Jacova

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Technology and Dementia: The Future is Now.Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders · 2019
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

10 authors.

Julie M RobillardNational Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Judy IllesNational Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, UBC Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Marcel ArcandDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
B Lynn BeattieDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sherri HaydenDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, UBC Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Peter LawrenceDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Joanna McGrenereDepartment of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Peter B ReinerNational Core for Neuroethics, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, UBC Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Dana WittenbergDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Claudia JacovaDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFreely accessible online tests for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are widely available. The objective of this study was to evaluate these tests along three dimensions as follows: (1) scientific validity; (2) human-computer interaction (HCI) features; and (3) ethics features.

methodsA sample of 16 online tests was identified through a keyword search. A rating grid for the tests was developed, and all tests were evaluated by two expert panels.

resultsExpert analysis revealed that (1) the validity of freely accessible online tests for AD is insufficient to provide useful diagnostic information; (2) HCI features of the tests are adequate for target users, and (3) the tests do not adhere to accepted ethical norms for medical interventions. DISCUSSION: The most urgent concerns raised center on the ethics of collecting and evaluating responses from users. Physicians and other professionals will benefit from a heightened awareness of these tools and their limitations today.

Indexed as

AgingAlzheimer's diseaseDiagnosisEthicsOnline healthOnline testsSelf-assessment

Identifiers

PMID27239511
PMCPMC4877927

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.