Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40755858›Full record

ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports

Diagnostic and inclusion criteria in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: A systematic review of the past decade.

Yumei Liu, Siyan Chen, Sha Li, Zian Pei, Shuhan Fan, Yi Guo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yumei LiuInstitute of Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders, Shenzhen Bay Laboratory, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4827-2052
Siyan ChenDepartment of Neurology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospitals of Jinan University, The First Affiliated Hospitals of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3898-8603
Sha LiInstitute of Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders, Shenzhen Bay Laboratory, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3289-8829
Zian PeiDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-6539
Shuhan FanDepartment of Neurology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospitals of Jinan University, The First Affiliated Hospitals of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7174-837X
Yi GuoInstitute of Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders, Shenzhen Bay Laboratory, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2614-6118

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Alzheimer's diseasediagnosis criteriaelectroencephalographyinclusion criteriamini-Mental state examinationneuropsychological assessments

Identifiers

PMID40755858
PMCPMC12317185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.