ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
Audio review as a measure of quality assurance and control of cognitive assessments in Alzheimer's disease studies: An experience from Japanese Trial-Ready Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials targeting preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) require accurate cognitive assessments to detect subtle changes over time. Audio review of assessment sessions has been proposed as a quality assurance (QA) and control (QC) measure, yet evidence regarding its effectiveness remains limited. Objective: We aim to investigate how audio review contributes to the QA/QC process. Methods: In the Japanese Trial-Ready Cohort (J-TRC) onsite study, 194 Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) sessions were audio-recorded and independently reviewed. Examiners were certified psychometrists who had undergone pre-training. Audio reviewers issued "queries" for scoring deviations warranting score amendments and "comments" for procedural deviations or recommended improvements. Mixed-effects models analyzed associations between the number of queries/comments and (1) cumulative PACC examination experience and (2) cumulative received feedback for individual examiners. Results: Of 194 reviewed sessions, 63.4% contained at least one query, and 84.5% included one or more comments. A higher cumulative number of PACC sessions by each examiner was associated with fewer queries and smaller score changes over time. Notably, the cumulative number of feedback reports was significantly associated with a lower number of comments, suggesting targeted feedback helped refine examiners' testing manner. However, cumulative feedback was not clearly linked to the frequency of scoring deviations (queries). Conclusions: These findings indicate that audio review can serve as an effective QA/QC measure by reducing non-adherence to assessment standards.
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.