ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2025
Validity of gold-standard clinical outcome assessments in U.S. Latinx-Hispanic participants enrolled in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: A literature review.
Review in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison between seven scales of neuropsychological assessments for cognitive impairment screening in Chinese older population: a cross-sectional study in Chongqing, China.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Validity of gold-standard clinical outcome assessments in U.S. Latinx-Hispanic participants enrolled in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: A literature review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is an urgency to achieve equitable representation of Latinx-Hispanic participants in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. Valid instruments for these communities contribute to the generalizability of clinical trial outcomes. The aim of this study was to review articles reporting studies that conducted a thorough assessment of the validity and reliability of three gold-standard cognitive measures with U.S. Latinx-Hispanic communities. We reviewed validity/reliability studies of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition (ADAS-Cog), and Repeatable Battery of the Assessment of Neuropsychological Scales (RBANS) among U.S. Latinx-Hispanic communities. Database searches included PubMed and PsycINFO. For the CDR, one study assessed validity and the other reliability. For the RBANS, one study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy, and another conducted an equating analysis. No studies addressed the validation/reliability of ADAS-Cog. Our literature review revealed limited studies examining the validity and reliability of the CDR, ADAS-Cog, and RBANS in U.S. Latinx-Hispanic communities. HIGHLIGHTS: Various government entities are mandating increased enrollment of the Latinx-Hispanic communities in AD clinical trials without considering the potential negative impact of study results when invalid COAs are used in underrepresented communities. Our investigation demonstrates three gold-standard COAs routinely used in AD clinical trials have mostly not been validated on the Latinx-Hispanic communities residing in the United States. We recommend specific actions to support the development of valid clinical outcome measures for the Latinx-Hispanic communities.
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.