Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34195350›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2021

Building clinically relevant outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum.

Dorene M Rentz, Alette M Wessels, Ananth V Annapragada, Anna-Karin Berger, Chris J Edgar, Michael Gold, David S Miller, Christopher Randolph, J Michael Ryan, Glen Wunderlich and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. How donanemab data address the coverage with evidence development questions.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

17 authors.

Dorene M RentzDepartment of Neurology Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA.
Alette M WesselsEli Lilly and Company Indianapolis Indiana USA.
Ananth V AnnapragadaE.B. Singleton Department of Radiology Texas Children's Hospital & Baylor College of Medicine Houston Texas USA.
Anna-Karin BergerLundbeck A/S Clinical Development Copenhagen Denmark.
Chris J EdgarCogstate Ltd London UK.
Michael GoldAbbVie Inc., North Chicago Illinois USA.
David S MillerSignant Health Blue Bell Pennsylvania USA.
Christopher RandolphWCG MedAvante-ProPhase Hamilton New Jersey USA.
J Michael RyanRodin Therapeutics Cambridge Massachusetts USA.
Glen WunderlichBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. Burlington Ontario Canada.
Megan Canniere ZoschgF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel Basel-City Switzerland.
Dominic TrépelGlobal Brain Health Institute Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland.
David S KnopmanDepartment of Neurology Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Adam M StaffaroniMemory and Aging Center Department of Neurology Weill Institute for Neurosciences University of California, San Francisco San Francisco USA.
Lisa J BainIndependent Science Writer Elverson Pennsylvania USA.
Maria C CarrilloAlzheimer's Association Chicago Illinois USA.
Christopher J WeberAlzheimer's Association Chicago Illinois USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Demonstrating that treatments are clinically meaningful across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum is critical for meeting our goals of accelerating a cure by 2025. While this topic has been a focus of several Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meetings, there remains no consensus as to what constitutes a "clinically meaningful outcome" in the eyes of patients, clinicians, care partners, policymakers, payers, and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, the field has not come to agreement as to what constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect at each stage of disease severity. The AARR meeting on November 19-20, 2019, reviewed current approaches to defining clinical meaningfulness from various perspectives including those of patients and care partners, clinicians, regulators, health economists, and public policymakers. Participants discussed approaches that may confer clinical relevance at each stage of the disease continuum and fostered discussion about what should guide us in the future.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseclinical meaningfulnesscognitive declinedementiaResearch Roundtabletreatment

Identifiers

PMID34195350
PMCPMC8234696

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.