Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39072914›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2024

The utility of recruitment incentives in early Alzheimer's disease trials.

Marina Ritchie, Megan Witbracht, Eunji Russ, S Ahmad Sajjadi, Gaby T Thai, Steven Tam, Daniel L Gillen, Joshua D Grill

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The utility of recruitment incentives in early Alzheimer's disease trials.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    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.

Marina RitchieUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5844-1293
Megan WitbrachtUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Eunji RussUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
S Ahmad SajjadiUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Gaby T ThaiUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Steven TamUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Daniel L GillenUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Joshua D GrillUC Irvine Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.

Funding

The Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at the University of California, IrvineP30AG066519 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Elizabeth Head · 2020 to 2026
$27.9M
BrightFocus Foundation A2018405SBrightFocus Foundation NIA P30 AG066519NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAmid recent approvals, early Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains an active area of treatment development.

methodsWe performed a conjoint experiment to compare preferences among 26 patients with mild cognitive impairment for four trial features including designs incorporating active aducanumab-control (vs. placebo), returning tau positron emission tomography (PET) results (vs. no disclosure), remote study partner participation (vs. in person), and increased risk of brain swelling (vs. lower risk). We used a generalized estimating equation to model the utility of factor levels.

resultsReturning tau PET results had the highest utility (est: 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13, 0.81; P = 0.007); remote study partner participation showed a similar trend (est: 0.29; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.63; P = 0.097). Trials with active-controlled design (est: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.33, 0.35; P = 0.956) did not demonstrate utility and higher risk of brain swelling had negative utility (est: -0.64; 95% CI: -0.99, -0.30; P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Returning additional biomarker results may increase willingness to enroll in early AD trials. HIGHLIGHTS: We compared mild cognitive impairment participant preferences for four trial design features. Returning tau positron emission tomography results had the highest utility. Remote study partner participation showed a positive, albeit non-significant, trend. No utility was observed for an active aducanumab-control design.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCognitive DysfunctionPositron-Emission TomographyAgedFemaleHumansMaleMotivationPatient SelectionaducanumabAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedclinical trialsearly Alzheimer's diseaserecruitmentstudy design

Identifiers

PMID39072914
PMCPMC11497734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.