ReviewAlzheimer's research & therapy2021
Assessing individual-level change in dementia research: a review of methodologies.
Review in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- From heart to mind: A narrative review of incidence, risk factors, and mechanisms of dementia after cardiac surgery.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Review
- Association of Alzheimer's disease concerns with amyloid burden and lifestyle behaviors in cognitively unimpaired older adults.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Discussing methodological gaps in psychosocial intervention research for dementia: an opinion article from the INTERDEM Methodology Taskforce guided by the MRC framework.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
- Traceability and comparability through crosswalks with the NeuroMET Memory Metric.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Using a Digital Neuro Signature to measure longitudinal individual-level change in Alzheimer's disease: the Altoida large cohort study.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether in the context of monitoring disease progression or in assessing the effects of interventions, a major challenge in dementia research is determining when an individual has undergone meaningful change in symptoms and other relevant outcomes such as cognitive test performance. The challenge lies in differentiating genuine improvement or deterioration from change in scores due to random and systematic error. BODY: In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of available methods for assessing individual-level change in the context of key challenges, including imperfect and differential reliability of scores, and practice effects. We discuss indices of reliable change and the use of composite and item response theory (IRT) scores.
conclusionWe conclude that IRT-based approaches hold particular promise because they have the flexibility to accommodate solutions to a wide range of issues that influence the accuracy of judgements of meaningful change. We close by discussing the practical implications of adopting IRT-based approaches.
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.