ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Utilizing MCID for evaluating clinical relevance of AD therapeutic interventions.
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.
- Evaluating the clinical effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases using minimal clinically important difference: systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of pharmacal research · 2026Pooled it
- Defining and Measuring Cognitive Decline and Clinical Relevance.Neurology and therapy · 2026Review
- Validity of the two different scoring methods of the Clinical Dementia Rating scale in staging and detection of cognitive impairment in the Peruvian population.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Utilizing MCID for evaluating clinical relevance of AD therapeutic interventions.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the recent approval of disease-modifying treatments for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), European Medicine Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (EMA/CHMP) entities, there is a growing sense of urgency and renewed efforts to reassess and understand what constitutes a clinically meaningful benefit in the context of new treatments for AD care, despite the discordance between regulatory entities in regulatory decision-making. While the concept of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was introduced many years ago, there remains an ongoing debate about how best to evaluate and define clinical benefit in the context of emerging and new therapies for dementia. In this perspective piece, we assess how MCID can be applied to common endpoints and identify areas where MCID application or generation could be useful to enable a better valuation of therapeutic innovation. We offer recommendations for greater consistency in measures used to define MCID, and encourage the prioritized use of patient-reported measures in early AD to build fieldwide consensus for MCID estimation methods and application in AD. Highlights: There is no gold standard or field-wide consensus on what constitutes a clinically meaningful change in Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression trajectories.Anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) may be used as a tool that can be leveraged for greater contextualization of the clinical relevance of a treatment effect.Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be used to define MCID, particularly within mild cognitive impairment (MCI), prodrome/mild AD groups.Greater consistency is needed in the outcome measures used to detect cognitive and functional change to define MCID. This will enable MCID comparisons and support replications of MCID estimates across AD populations.Observational data can augment the clinical characterization and impact of treatment effect and help establish a "ground truth" MCID.MCID estimates for AD outcomes may be used in regulatory submissions to help contextualize the importance of a statistically significant treatment effect.
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.