Trial reportAlzheimer's research & therapy2025
Recruitment and retention in a preclinical AD trial: comparisons between academic and non-academic sites.
Trial report in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research satisfaction among participants in a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- The BEYONDD Pilot Study: A Decentralized Community-Engaged Research Framework for Multimodal Characterization of Neurodegenerative Risk in a Multi-Ethnic, Midlife Cohort with Subjective Cognitive or Behavioral Complaints.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating evidence-based recruitment strategies for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias clinical trial research: A literature review.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants at various site types including research-focused academic institutions and independent non-academic sites. Limited research has examined the impact of site type on recruitment and retention outcomes.
methodsTo evaluate potential differences between site types, we used data from the Anti-Amyloid Treatment for Asymptomatic AD (A4) trial, the largest completed preclinical AD trial to date. We first compared the frequency of varying recruitment sources between site types. We then examined potential differences in participant- and site-level characteristics. To assess potential site type differences in retention, we fit a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for variables associated with site type. For participants who prematurely discontinued, we examined potential differences by site type in reasons for dropout.
resultsOne thousand and fifty-eight participants were randomized at 50 academic (N = 835) and 15 non-academic (N = 223) sites in North America. Academic sites had higher proportions of participants recruited through earned media and organizational referrals and lower proportions recruited through internal referrals and advertisements, compared to non-academic sites. Participant-level characteristics differed between site types. Compared to non-academic sites, academic sites had higher proportions of participants with a family history of dementia and a professional degree (highest education category), but lower proportions of individuals with a history of diabetes, a CDR-SB score above 0, and belonging to a racial and ethnic underrepresented group. Though the results were not statistically significant, non-academic sites had a higher screening rate (number of participants screened/site/month), but a lower randomization rate (randomized/screened) compared to academic sites. No site type differences in completion rates were observed. When examining reasons for discontinuation, we found that among the 72 participants who discontinued the trial at non-academic sites, 56 (77.8%) withdrew consent or were lost to follow up. In contrast, 140 out of 243 (57.6%) participants who discontinued the trial in academic sites withdrew consent or were lost to follow up.
conclusionOur findings shed light on important site type differences that investigators should consider when making choices around site, design, and conduct in multisite preclinical AD trials.
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.