ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
A retrospective analysis of serious adverse events and deaths in U.S.-based lifestyle clinical trials for cognitive health.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This retrospective analysis examined serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths in U.S. lifestyle clinical trials aimed at enhancing cognitive health in older adults. Methods: Data was gathered from trials completed between January 1, 2000, and July 19, 2023, via ClinicalTrials.gov's API. Results: Among these trials, 76% did not report results. The remaining studies fell into four intervention categories: Cognitive/Behavioral, Exercise/Movement, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal. When considering all trial types collectively, the findings suggest that lifestyle clinical trials are generally safe. There was no significant increase in the relative risk of experiencing an SAE in the intervention group compared to the control group. However, in terms of relative risk of death, an increase of 28% was observed in the intervention compared to the control, which was statistically significant (X Conclusions: These findings should be cautiously considered due to the low rate of reporting, but underscore the significance of reporting clinical trial results, enhancing transparency, and facilitating more accurate safety assessments in cognitive aging and lifestyle interventions for older adults.
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.