ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Three approaches to determining clinically meaningful benefit on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory in dementia clinical trials for agitation.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Toward Precision Neuropsychiatry of Dementia: Neuropsychiatric Symptoms as Multidimensional Clinical Phenotypes.Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society · 2026Review
- Physician and professional caregiver perspectives on meaningful change in agitation behaviors in Alzheimer's dementia: Insights from qualitative interviews.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Article
- Three approaches to determining clinically meaningful benefit on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory in dementia clinical trials for agitation.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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a need to understand the clinical meaningfulness of symptom score changes in treatment trials of dementia-related agitation. We estimated minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for commonly employed agitation scales and contextualized their clinical application.
methodsWe employed anchor- and distribution-based approaches to determine changes in scores corresponding to minimal symptom improvement. An opinion-based approach assessed expert clinicians' agreement on the meaningfulness of score changes through three clinical vignettes.
resultsMinimal symptom improvement for Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory total score ranged from -4 (over <1 month) to -11 (over 1 to 3 months) points. Greater symptom severity correlated with higher MCID estimates. The clinical importance of score changes was influenced by treatment duration, pharmacological side effects, and impacts on caregiver distress/time resources. DISCUSSION: The clinical meaningfulness of agitation scale MCIDs is influenced by trial-specific and clinical factors. Shorter trial durations and measuring caregiver distress/time resources enhance the clinical interpretation of agitation treatment outcomes. Highlights: For the CMAI total score, the MCID was -4 points over shorter time scales and -11 points for longer time scales.Worse agitation severity was associated with higher MCID estimates.There was high expert consensus that a noticeable treatment benefit was not worthwhile if it occurred after 12 weeks or had no impact on caregiver/staff distress/time resources.
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.