ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Disentangling minimum clinically important difference for an individual and a population in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
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 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.
- Disentangling minimum clinically important difference for an individual and a population in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent accelerated and traditional approval of anti-amyloid therapies by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with early Alzheimer's disease has stimulated heated debate on whether or not the benefits of these therapeutic agents achieve a minimum clinically important effect size, or minimum clinically important difference. We argue that these debates are rooted in the entanglement of two fundamentally different concepts, the minimum clinically important difference for an individual versus that of a population. At the core of the indiscrimination between the two concepts is the unrealistic requirement or expectation that a drug should provide the same clinically important effect for every patient in the target population to be considered achieving meaningful benefit for the population. We discuss the difference and connection between the two concepts to facilitate the communication about their difference and relatedness. Highlights: Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is defined for an individual and population-level mimimum clinically important difference (pMCID) is defined for a population.MCID and pMCID are fundamentally different measures.We established their connection and showed in general pMCID < MCID.Discussion of effect size of Alzheimer's disease treatments should clearly distinguish the two measures.
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.