ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2022
Observational studies in Alzheimer disease: bridging preclinical studies and clinical trials.
Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise intervention on sleep quality in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A study evaluation framework for measuring cognition: lessons learned in cross-national contexts from four English-speaking aging cohorts.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Causal inference in real-world dementia research: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Analysis of the causal relationship between immune cells and rheumatoid arthritis from the perspective of genetic variation: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2024Review
- Pre-clinical Models for Geriatric Pharmacotherapy.Drugs & aging · 2024Review
- Muscle-origin creatinine-cystatin C ratio is an osteoporosis marker in individuals with normal renal function: evidence from observational and Mendelian randomization analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent high-profile failures of Alzheimer disease treatments at the clinical trial stage have led to renewed efforts to identify and test novel interventions for Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). In this Perspective, we highlight the importance of including well-designed observational studies as part of these efforts. Observational research is an important cornerstone for gathering evidence on risk factors and causes of ADRD; this evidence can then be combined with data from preclinical studies and randomized controlled trials to inform the development of effective interventions. Observational study designs can be particularly beneficial for hypothesis generation, posing questions that are unethical or impractical for a trial setting, studying life-course associations, research in populations typically not included in trials, and public health surveillance. Here, we discuss each of these situations in the specific context of ADRD research. We also highlight novel approaches to enhance causal inference and provide a timely discussion on how observational epidemiological studies help provide a bridge between preclinical studies and successful interventions for ADRD.
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.