Trial reportAlzheimer's research & therapy2023
How healthy participants value additional diagnostic testing with amyloid-PET in patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment - a bidding game experiment.
Trial report in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo estimate the perceived value of additional testing with amyloid-PET in Euros in healthy participants acting as analogue patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
methodsOne thousand four hundred thirty-one healthy participants acting as analogue MCI patients (mean age 65 ± 8, 929 (75%) female) were recruited via the Dutch Brain Research Registry. Participants were asked to identify with a presented case (video vignette) of an MCI patient and asked whether they would prefer additional diagnostic testing with amyloid PET in this situation. If yes, respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay for additional diagnostic testing. Monetary value was elicited via a bidding game in which participants were randomized over three conditions: (A) additional testing results in better patient management, (B) Same as condition A and a delay in institutionalization of 3 months, and (C) same as A and a delay in institutionalization of 6 months. Participants who were not willing to take a test were compared with participants who were willing to take a test using logit models. The highest monetary value per condition was analyzed using random-parameter mixed models.
resultsThe vast majority of participants acting as analogue MCI patients (87% (n = 1238)) preferred additional testing with amyloid PET. Participants who were not interested were more often female (OR = 1.61 95% CI [1.09-2.40]) and expressed fewer worries to get AD (OR = 0.64 [0.47-0.87]). The median "a priori" (i.e., before randomization) monetary value of additional diagnostic testing was €1500 (IQR 500-1500). If an additional amyloid PET resulted in better patient management (not further specified; condition A), participants were willing to pay a median price of €2000 (IQR = 1000-3500). Participants were willing to pay significantly more than condition A (better patient management) if amyloid-PET testing additionally resulted in a delay in institutionalization of 3 months (€530 [255-805] on top of €2000, condition B) or 6 months (€596 [187-1005] on top of €2000, condition C).
conclusionsMembers of the general population acting as MCI patients are willing to pay a substantial amount of money for amyloid-PET and this increases when diagnostic testing leads to better patient management and the prospect to live longer at home.
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.