ArticleAmerican journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias
Comparing Lookback Periods to Ascertain Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.
Article in American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined Effect of Toothbrushing and Interdental Cleaning on the Risk of Dementia.Yonsei medical journal · 2026Article
- Incidence and prevalence of dementia among US Medicare beneficiaries, 2015-21: population based study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Claims data are a valuable resource for studying Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Alzheimer's disease and related dementias is often identified using a list of claims codes and a fixed lookback period of 3 years of data. However, a 1-year lookback or an approach using all-available lookback data could be beneficial based on different research questions. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare 1-year and all-available lookback approaches to ascertaining ADRD compared to the standard 3-year approach. Using a cohort of Veterans hospitalized for heart failure (N = 373, 897), our results suggested high agreement (93% or greater) between the lookback periods. The 1-year lookback period had lower sensitivity (60%) and underestimated the prevalence of ADRD. These results suggest that 1-year and all-available lookback periods are viable approaches when using claims data.
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.