ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
General practitioners' perspectives on blood biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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.
- Introduction to the special issue on ethics and equity in implementing novel biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: current progress and new directions.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
- General practitioners' perspectives on blood biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
- Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in primary care: A French qualitative study exploring perspectives of general practitioners.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers could improve the diagnostic process for patients with cognitive complaints presenting to primary care. We investigated general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives on facilitating and hindering factors associated with the use and implementation of AD blood biomarkers.
methodIn this qualitative, semi-structured interview study, we used purposive sampling to recruit a heterogeneous group of 18 Dutch GPs. Qualitative data analysis of interview transcripts was based on the Theoretical Domains Framework.
resultsGPs believed that AD blood biomarkers could have both positive and negative consequences. Mentioned positive consequences included facilitating an accessible diagnostic process, clarity about the etiology, and life planning. Mentioned negative consequences were imposing a psychological burden on patients and possible AD over- or underdiagnosis.
conclusionWhile AD blood biomarkers may have potential benefits according to GPs, additional evidence, definition of context of use and logistics, and adoption of guidelines are needed for eventual implementation. Highlights: GPs experience a knowledge gap regarding AD and AD blood biomarkersAD blood biomarkers could inform GPs, enabling decision-making in primary careGPs perceive various harms and benefits associated with the use of AD biomarkersInformation, education and guidelines are key factors for successful implementation.
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.