ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
Diagnostic and inclusion criteria in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: A systematic review of the past decade.
Review 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. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of Wearable Technology for Measuring and Characterizing Sedentary Behavior in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Plasma Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia: The Dual Role of Soluble Fractalkine as a Biomarker of Frontotemporal Dementia and Its Neuroprotective Effects in Cortical Neurons "In Vitro".Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Brain-First vs. Body-First Models in Neurodegenerative Disease: A Perspective Review.NeuroSci · 2026Review
- Cognitive training effects in mild cognitive impairment with and without amyloid pathology.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Article
- Interchangeability of CSF and PET to identify Alzheimer's disease pathology.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dementia, mainly caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), is a leading cause of mortality and disability in the elderly. However, inconsistencies in diagnostic and inclusion criteria challenge the design and comparability of AD clinical trials. Objective: To review recent AD clinical trials, focusing on diagnostic methods and inclusion criteria, and identify trends and gaps to inform future research. Methods: We systematically searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar for AD clinical trials, extracting data on diagnostic criteria, disease stage, cognitive assessments, biomarker use, and participant age. Results: Of the 27,471 articles screened, 71 studies were included in the final review. Most were conducted in North America (52%) and Europe (34%). NINCDS-ADRDA (56%) and NIA-AA 2011 (30%) were the most used diagnostic criterion, with the latter increasingly adopted in recent years. Over half focused on mild-to-moderate AD (56%), 16% on mild AD, and 13% included mild cognitive impairment/mild AD populations, with growing interest in early-stage interventions. However, only a minority reported notable cognitive improvements. The Mini-Mental State Examination was the most frequently used assessment tool (86%), though 36 different cutoff schemes were identified. Biomarkers were used in 38% of studies, mainly in the past three years, while others relied on symptom-based or imaging approaches. Participants ranged from 45 to 95 years old, with 50 as the most common lower age limit. Conclusions: Symptom-based criteria still dominate AD trials. Given the limited efficacy of single interventions, future studies should consider multimodal, non-invasive approaches and prioritize objective biomarkers to enhance consistency and diagnostic precision.
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.