Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393705›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2022

A comparison of two approaches for modeling dementia progression in a changing patient context.

Nina Wubben, Miriam Haaksma, Inez H G B Ramakers, Wiesje M van der Flier, Frans R J Verhey, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, René J F Melis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Nina WubbenDepartment of Geriatric Medicine & Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6461-0068
Miriam HaaksmaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3518-9152
Inez H G B RamakersDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4747-2879
Wiesje M van der FlierDepartment of Neurology I Amsterdam Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8766-6224
Frans R J VerheyDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8307-8406
Marcel G M Olde RikkertDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1397-1677
René J F MelisDepartment of Geriatric Medicine & Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explain the heterogeneity in dementia disease trajectory, we studied the influence of changing patient characteristics on disease course by comparing the association of dementia progression with baseline comorbidity and frailty, and with time-varying comorbidity and frailty.

methodsWe used individual growth models to study baseline and time-varying associations in newly diagnosed dementia patients (n = 331) followed for 3 years. We measured cognition using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), daily functioning using the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD), frailty using the Fried criteria and comorbidity using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G).

resultsAlthough baseline comorbidity and frailty were associated with decreased daily functioning at diagnosis, their effects clearly diminished over time. In contrast, when incorporating comorbidity and frailty as time-varying covariates, comorbidity was associated with lower daily functioning, and frailty with both lower cognition and daily functioning. Being frail was associated with a 0.9-point lower MMSE score (p = 0.03) and a 14.9-point lower DAD score (p < 0.01). A 1-point increase in CIRS-G score was associated with a 1.1-point lower DAD score (p < 0.01).

conclusionsTime-varying comorbidity and frailty were more consistently associated with dementia disease course than baseline comorbidity and frailty. Therefore, modeling only baseline predictors is insufficient for understanding the course of dementia in a changing patient context.

Indexed as

DementiaFrailtyAgedComorbidityDisability EvaluationFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMental Status and Dementia TestsAlzheimercomorbiditydementiadisease trajectoryfrailtymixed models

Identifiers

PMID35393705
PMCPMC9324834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.