ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2024
Research Participants' Perspectives on Precision Diagnostics for Alzheimer's Disease.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Persons With Cognitive Impairment and Care Partner Motivations and Experiences of Undergoing an Amyloid Scan: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.The Gerontologist · 2024Pooled it
- Long-term impact of disclosing amyloid PET results to individuals with subjective cognitive decline.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- Counseling and disclosure practices in predictive Alzheimer's disease diagnostics: A scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Amyloid PET disclosure in subjective cognitive decline: Patient experiences over time.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Perceptions of the use of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: A systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding research participants' responses to learning Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk information is important to inform clinical implementation of precision diagnostics given rapid advances in disease modifying therapies.
objectiveWe assessed participants' perspectives on the meaning of their amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging results for their health, self-efficacy to understand their results, psychological impact of learning their results, experience receiving their results from the clinical team, and interest in genetic testing for AD risk.
methodsWe surveyed individuals who were being clinically evaluated for AD and received PET imaging six weeks after the return of results. We analyzed responses to close-ended survey items by PET result using Fisher's exact test and qualitatively coded open-ended responses.
resultsA total of 88 participants completed surveys, most of whom had mild cognitive impairment due to AD (38.6%), AD (28.4%), or were cognitively unimpaired (21.6%). Participants subjectively understood their results (25.3% strongly agreed, 41.8% agreed), which could help them plan (16.5% strongly agreed, 49.4% agreed). Participants with a negative PET result (n = 25) reported feelings of relief (Fisher's exact p < 0.001) and happiness (p < 0.001) more frequently than those with a positive result. Most participants felt that they were treated respectfully and were comfortable voicing concerns during the disclosure process. Genetic testing was anticipated to be useful for medical care decisions (48.2%) and to inform family members about AD risk (42.9%).
conclusionsParticipants had high subjective understanding and self-efficacy around their PET results and did not experience negative psychological effects. Interest in genetic testing was high.
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.