ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2025
Dementia diagnosis and prescription of antidementia drugs: An analysis of German claims data (2006-2016).
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in First-Time Symptomatic Antidementia Drug Dispensations to Home-Dwelling People in Norway: A Nationwide Register-Based Study.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2026Article
- Diagnosis patterns among diverse populations with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease in the USA.JAR life · 2026Article
- Regional disparities of antidementia drug treatment in Germany: what can we learn for the new generation of Alzheimer's therapies.Alzheimer's research & 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundUse of claims data allows to analyze health service characteristics of dementia, which is one of the most frequent cognitive disorders in Germany and worldwide.ObjectiveThe study aimed at describing the variability in dementia diagnoses and in antidementia drug prescription pattern.MethodsWe analyzed data from a population-based sample of one of the largest German statutory health insurances. The cohort included 30,403 patients with incident dementia diagnosis from 2006-2016. We described frequencies, patterns, and interrelations of diagnoses (Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular dementia, other specific dementia, unspecified dementia (UD), antidementia drugs (ADD), and professional groups. We described switches in diagnostic and medication patterns between index quarter and following quarters, and evaluated the prescriptions in relation to national guidelines.ResultsA total of 87% of patients received a diagnosis of UD in at least one quarter of insurance. In the quarter of incident diagnosis, 14% of patients received more than one diagnostic code of dementia, whereas over the course of observation, the majority of patients received more than one diagnostic code (61%). Most patients were diagnosed by a general practitioner without involving a specialist. All professional groups primarily made UD diagnoses except specialists who mainly diagnosed AD. Thirty-five percent of all patients and 67% of AD patients were prescribed an ADD at least once.ConclusionsSpecialists made the most specific diagnoses and prescribed most ADDs. A specialist consultation may be advisable, but only 34% of patients visited one. Many AD patients might be left untreated due to underdiagnosis or -treatment.
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.