ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Clinically meaningful benefit and real-world evidence in Alzheimer's disease research and care.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive pathways for multimodal community-based detection of cognitive impairment: the CogScreen I study.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Lecanemab for treatment of individuals with early Alzheimer's Disease (AD) who are apolipoprotein E ε4 (ApoE ε4) non-carriers or heterozygotes.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Trial
- Defining and Measuring Cognitive Decline and Clinical Relevance.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- Improving Mealtime Independence for People With Dementia Living in Nursing Homes: A Pilot Study.Nursing research and practice · 2025Article
- Mitochondrial and ER stress crosstalk in TBI: mechanistic insights and therapeutic opportunities.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025Review
- Clinically meaningful benefit and real-world evidence in Alzheimer's disease research and care.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the realm of medical research, assessing novel therapies extends beyond statistical significance. The concept of meaningful benefits plays a pivotal role in determining the practical impact of interventions on patient outcomes. Clinical trials, which form the bedrock of evidence-based medicine, guide treatment decisions and shape health-care practices. While statistical significance remains a fundamental criterion, it falls short in fully evaluating the clinical relevance of therapeutic interventions. Clinically meaningful benefits focus on tangible improvements in patient health and well-being, transcending mere statistical thresholds. Key considerations include survival rates, symptom relief, functional status, and other patient-oriented outcomes. Determining meaningful benefits varies across diseases, patient populations, and available treatments. Balancing statistical rigor with clinical relevance is crucial. Overpowered trials may detect smaller differences than anticipated, necessitating careful interpretation. Researchers must view trial results through a patient-centric lens. Beyond survival, evaluating quality of life and side effects is equally relevant. Quantifying meaningful benefits involves metrics like numbers needed to treat and progression-free survival. Consistency across outcomes matters, as clinicians weigh gains in survival against improvements in quality of life. The pursuit of meaningful benefits elevates clinical trials from mere statistical exercises to patient-centered endeavors. Researchers, clinicians, and regulators must prioritize outcomes that genuinely matter to patients, ensuring that medical progress translates into meaningful improvements for them and their families.
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.