ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2024
Decentralized clinical trials for medications to reduce the risk of dementia: Consensus report and guidance.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging Research, Policy, and Practice: Advancing Evidence-Informed Approaches for Dementia Care and Prevention: an expert review by the Health Policy Professional Interest Area from ISTAART.Alzheimer's & dementia. Behavior & socioeconomics of aging · 2026Article
- Celebrating 40 years of the University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Research Center.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- A real-world disproportionality analysis of FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) events for lecanemab.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Decentralized clinical trials for medications to reduce the risk of dementia: Consensus report and guidance.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecent growth in the functionality and use of technology has prompted an increased interest in the potential for remote or decentralized clinical trials in dementia. There are many potential benefits associated with decentralized medication trials, but we currently lack specific recommendations for their delivery in the dementia field.
methodsA modified Delphi method engaged an expert panel to develop recommendations for the conduct of decentralized medication trials in dementia prevention. A working group of researchers and clinicians with expertise in dementia trials further refined the recommendations.
resultsOverall, the recommendations support the delivery of decentralized trials in dementia prevention provided adequate safety checks and balances are included. A total of 40 recommendations are presented, spanning aspects of decentralized clinical trials, including safety, dispensing, outcome assessment, and data collection. DISCUSSION: These recommendations provide an accessible, pragmatic guide for the design and conduct of remote medication trials for dementia prevention. HIGHLIGHTS: Clinical trials of medication have begun adopting decentralized approaches. Researchers in the field lack guidance on what would be appropriate circumstances and frameworks for what would be appropriate circumstances and frameworks for the use of decentralized trial methods in dementia prevention. The present report provides consensus-based expert recommendations for decentralized clinical trials for dementia prevention.
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.