Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30868358›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019

Stakeholders' Views on Early Diagnosis for Alzheimer's Disease, Clinical Trial Participation and Amyloid PET Disclosure: A Focus Group Study.

Gwendolien Vanderschaeghe, Rik Vandenberghe, Kris Dierickx

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Counseling and disclosure practices in predictive Alzheimer's disease diagnostics: A scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biomarker disclosure protocols in prodromal Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gwendolien VanderschaegheCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, blok D box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Vanderschaeghe.gwendolien@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7258-2025
Rik VandenbergheLaboratory for Cognitive Neurology, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kris DierickxCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, blok D box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Public Health · USKU Leuven · BEUniversitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BE

Funding

IWT The project number is 120,836, and the title is, ?Biomarker-Based Adaptive Development in AD.?
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in an early stage is receiving increasing attention for a number of reasons, such as the failure of drug trials in more advanced disease stages, the demographic evolution, the financial impact of AD, and the approval of amyloid tracers for clinical use. Five focus group interviews with stakeholders (healthy elderly, informal caregivers, nursing staff, researchers, and clinicians) were conducted.. The verbatim transcripts were analysed via the Nvivo 11 software. Most stakeholder groups wanted to know their own amyloid PET scan result. However, differences occurred between FGs: two groups (informal caregivers and researchers) wanted to know, whilst in the three other groups (healthy elderly, nursing staff, and clinicians) FG members opted not to know or were still in doubt about their decision. Stakeholders provided insight into their reasons for wanting to know their amyloid PET scan result (e.g., the need for clarity, to inform relatives, to make arrangements), for not wanting to know their result, or why they were in doubt about their decision (e.g., fear of AD, not wanting to burden their social environment). Several advantages (e.g., to know what is going on with their health, to plan for the future) and disadvantages (e.g., absence of a disease modifying treatment, risks when undergoing tests) were mentioned as part of knowing their amyloid PET scan result. Certain considerations were clustered in a grey zone, in between advantage and disadvantage, such as the emotional consequences. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers ought to be aware of the diversity of reasons for (not) wanting to know their result and how possible benefits and risks can be viewed differently. The current findings are of importance for future early diagnosis and disclosure of results in the research setting.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDisclosureAdolescentAdultAgedAlzheimer DiseaseAmyloidAttitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthEarly DiagnosisFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPositron-Emission TomographyAmyloidAlzheimer’s diseaseAmyloid PETDisclosureEarly diagnosisMild cognitive impairmentQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID30868358
OpenAlexW2922466677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.