ReviewThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2025
Qualitative research and literature review support the integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) content validity in early symptomatic AD.
Review in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Testing the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes as an Outcome for Dementia with Lewy Bodies Clinical Trials.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) is a measure of cognition and daily function used to evaluate treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the content validity of the iADRS in early symptomatic AD, and to determine whether integrating assessment of cognition and function into a single measure of global disease severity is supported by the patients' experience.
methodsA targeted literature review of qualitative research in AD and qualitative interviews with 25 care partners of individuals with early symptomatic AD were conducted. Interviews started with open-ended concept elicitation exploring the patient experience of AD from the care partner perspective, including how cognitive changes affect daily functioning. This was followed by cognitive debriefing of the ADCS-iADL items. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Concepts extracted from the literature review and interviews were categorized into a conceptual model of patient experience of AD. A concept-to-item mapping exercise was conducted to assess the conceptual coverage of the iADRS.
resultsThe literature review comprised sixty articles. Interviews were conducted with care partners of 7 individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)-AD and care partners of 18 individuals with dementia due to AD. The resulting conceptual model incorporated 75 concepts related to AD experience categorized into three overarching domains: Cognition, Daily Function and Other Symptoms/Impacts. Interview findings endorsed the close link between cognition and daily function. Concept-to-item mapping demonstrated all Cognition and Daily function sub-domains within the model were assessed by at least one iADRS item, except Work/Professional, providing supportive evidence that the iADRS covers concepts that reflect the patient experience of early symptomatic AD.
conclusionsThis study offers a comprehensive conceptualisation of the patient experience of early symptomatic AD and highlights the intrinsic connection between cognition and daily function. The findings endorse the relevance of an integrated assessment of cognition and function and provide strong evidence for the content validity of the iADRS, highlighting its utility as a meaningful clinical outcome assessment (COA) for use as an endpoint in AD.
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.