ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Perceptions of the use of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: A systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature.
Review 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Biomarker investigations are increasingly used in the diagnostic assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet stakeholder perceptions and implementation factors remain underexplored. No systematic qualitative synthesis exists on these views. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the qualitative literature on perceptions of diagnostic AD biomarker investigations in both clinical and research settings among individuals with cognitive impairment, caregivers, and health-care professionals (HCPs) and to identify barriers and enablers to their practical implementation. A systematic review searched four databases up to May 2025 for English-language qualitative studies on stakeholder (HCPs, caregivers, patients) perspectives. A meta-ethnographic approach synthesized findings, with barriers/enablers classified using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). From 4319 records, 26 studies were included, yielding five key concepts: stakeholder expectations, test result significance, shared decision-making, diagnostic certainty, and test delivery systems. Barriers included lack of understanding (knowledge) and emotional burden (emotion). Enablers involved supporting decision making (memory, attention, decision processes) and beliefs about testing benefits (beliefs about consequences), though risks were equally noted. Barriers to AD biomarker use involve multiple TDF domains, with contrasting stakeholder viewpoints. Improving knowledge of biomarkers and addressing perceived benefits and risks can guide interventions, promoting more effective test use.
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.