ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2026
Recent Cochrane review has serious flaws: A perspective of clinicians and researchers from around the world.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2026. 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.
- Amyloid-beta-targeting monoclonal antibodies in early Alzheimer's disease: a cochrane review summary and appraisal for the neurological community.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 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
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to a Cochrane review (published in April 2026) on the clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies targeting beta amyloid, this perspective outlines a number of critiques. The scientists, methodologists, subject-matter experts, and clinicians on this perspective strongly recommend that the Cochrane editorial board consider a call for editorial response, correction of press materials, or commissioned reply to this review for four overarching reasons: (1) decision to pool antibodies that do and do not clear beta amyloid, (2) decision to include studies from a time when biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease were not available, (3) analytical and methodological limitations of the approach used, (4) conflating the distinct roles and methodological processes of systematic review and guideline methodologies, (5) contextualizing the present critique within the existing evidence-synthesis literature, and (6) mechanistic inference beyond the scope of the presented analyses. Conclusions that may not accurately reflect treatment-specific effects could cause significant downstream clinical and psychosocial harm to those currently undergoing treatment and their family members as well as individuals considering participation in Alzheimer's clinical 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.