ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Testing the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes as an Outcome for Dementia with Lewy Bodies Clinical Trials.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), a common cause of dementia, has no FDA-approved therapies, and clinical trials to date have had limited ability to demonstrate efficacy. The lack of validated DLB-specific clinical trial outcomes may hinder these efforts. Here, we test whether the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and other commonly used clinical evaluation tools for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) could potentially be used as outcome measures in future DLB clinical trials.
methodsA retrospective, cross-sectional chart review of 600 patients (359 AD, 241 DLB) who completed a comprehensive clinical, cognitive, functional, and behavioral evaluation over a 10-year period was carried out. Performance of the CDR, its sum of boxes (CDR-SB), and other AD and PD evaluation measures were assessed for stage-wide performance from mild cognitive impairment (CDR 0.5) to moderate-severe dementia (CDR 2).
resultsThe CDR and CDR-SB characterize important differences between AD and DLB across different cross-sectional stages of disease severity, with the greatest differences seen at the CDR 0.5 stage. DLB showed greater deficits in commonly used AD functional and behavioral measures at the CDR 0.5 stage, while more DLB-specific measures showed significant differences from AD across the entire disease spectrum. The patient version of the Quick Dementia Rating System showed greater stage-wide impairment in DLB than AD, supporting its use as a patient-reported outcome. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment showed greater stage-wide impairment in AD than in DLB patients, suggesting lack of sensitivity as an outcome measure for DLB clinical trials.
conclusionImproved study design and selection of appropriate outcome measures in DLB clinical trials can facilitate demonstration of efficacy. While the CDR-SB could work on a DLB clinical trial, the field would be most advanced by the development of a DLB-specific global rating instrument.
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.