Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38371360›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Caregivers' attitudes toward blood-based biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease.

Katharina Bolsewig, Hester Blok, Eline A J Willemse, Rob B M Groot Zwaaftink, Minke Kooistra, Ellen M A Smets, Charlotte E Teunissen, Leonie N C Visser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Patient views on blood-based biomarker tests for Alzheimer's disease in primary care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors.

Katharina BolsewigDepartment of Laboratory Medicine Neurochemistry Laboratory Amsterdam Neuroscience Amsterdam UMC VU University Amsterdam the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3116-7789
Hester BlokAlzheimer Nederland Amersfoort the Netherlands.
Eline A J WillemseDepartment of Laboratory Medicine Neurochemistry Laboratory Amsterdam Neuroscience Amsterdam UMC VU University Amsterdam the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9140-4243
Rob B M Groot ZwaaftinkAlzheimer Nederland Amersfoort the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0625-0823
Minke KooistraAlzheimer Nederland Amersfoort the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0539-374X
Ellen M A SmetsDepartment of Medical Psychology Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute University of Amsterdam Amsterdam UMC Amsterdam the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8145-8595
Charlotte E TeunissenDepartment of Laboratory Medicine Neurochemistry Laboratory Amsterdam Neuroscience Amsterdam UMC VU University Amsterdam the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-0837
Leonie N C VisserDepartment of Medical Psychology Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute University of Amsterdam Amsterdam UMC Amsterdam the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3487-7938

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe aimed to evaluate informal caregivers' attitudes toward undergoing and future implementation of blood-based biomarkers (BBBM) testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD).

methodsWe explored caregivers' perspectives, by combining an online survey (

resultsMost caregivers (72.0%) favored BBBM for AD diagnosis. Provided with hypothetical scenarios, confidence in a normal result decreased significantly if experienced symptoms were more severe (mild: 78.5% vs. severe: 48.6%). Caregivers' attitudes toward BBBM for screening purposes significantly improved with prospect of treatment (53.3% vs. 92.5%). Concerns toward BBBM testing included treatment unavailability, increased/prolonged distress, and AD-related stigma. Potential benefits were actionability, explanation for symptoms, and opportunities for better care and future treatment. DISCUSSION: Emerging AD treatment and reduction of AD-related stigma could profoundly increase public interest in BBBM testing for AD. Highlights: Most informal caregivers would want blood-based biomarker (BBBM) testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis.Perceived (dis)advantages were related to diagnosing AD early.With severe symptoms, there was less confidence in normal BBBM results.Treatment availability would significantly increase interest in BBBM testing for AD.Informal caregivers showed uncertainty regarding the meaning of the term "AD."

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseblood‐based biomarkerscaregiversdementiapublic patient involvementpublic perspective

Identifiers

PMID38371360
PMCPMC10870798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.