Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40291121›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)

Clinically meaningful benefit and real-world evidence in Alzheimer's disease research and care.

Robert Perneczky, Lutz Froelich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

2 authors.

Robert PerneczkyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy University Hospital, LMU Munich Munich Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1981-7435
Lutz FroelichDepartment of Geriatric Psychiatry Central Institute of Mental Health Mannheim Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Alzheimer's disease and neurodegenerationbiomarker‐based early and accurate diagnosisdisease‐modifying and symptomatic treatmentdisease prevention and early interventionmild cognitive impairment and dementiapatient autonomy and independence

Identifiers

PMID40291121
PMCPMC12022225

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.