ArticleJAR life2025
How many sites are enough? a novel, site-based power analysis method for real-world registry studies of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.
Article in JAR life, 2025. 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.
- Identification of patients receiving amyloid-targeting therapies in observational studies using amyloid PET trajectories: Insights from LEADS.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Real-world registries ALZ-NET (US) and AD-DMT (Japan) support safety surveillance of anti-amyloid antibodies. Conventional power calculations-dividing required patients by mean per-site caseload-can underestimate the number of centers needed because of patient counts variability. Objectives: To develop and evaluate a simulation-based method for site-level sample size planning that incorporates inter-site variability. Design: We developed a simulation using a zero-truncated negative binomial model to reflect caseload heterogeneity. We estimated the required sites (k) to achieve a target precision (95 % confidence interval [CI] width) for ARIA incidence under random and volume-weighted sampling, based on data from published trials. The required number of sites was determined as the point where the CI width met a prespecified precision target (< 0.1). Setting: Simulated ALZ-NET and AD-DMT registry settings using prevalence and ARIA frequencies from published lecanemab and donanemab trials. Measurements: Precision (95 % CI width) for estimating ARIA incidence in Results: Under random sampling, our method's site requirement (∼320 sites) was consistent with the ICC-adjusted method, whereas the conventional method underestimated the need (∼220 sites). Critically, our framework showed that strategic volume-weighted sampling could reduce the requirement to as few as 110 sites, surpassing the efficiency of the static analytical methods. Conclusions: Conventional methods risk underestimating site requirements by ignoring caseload heterogeneity. Our simulation framework provides more realistic estimates and, crucially, quantifies the substantial efficiency gains from strategic recruitment, serving as a flexible tool to optimize registry design.
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.