↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes measures in a decade of dementia and mild cognitive impairment trials

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Outcomes measures in a decade of dementia and mild cognitive impairment trials
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13195-016-0216-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Kirsty Harrison, Anna H. Noel-Storr, Nele Demeyere, Emma L. Reynish, Terry J. Quinn

Abstract

In a research study, to give a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of interventions, the outcome measures should reflect the lived experience of the condition. In dementia studies, this necessitates the use of outcome measures which capture the range of disease effects, not limited to cognitive functioning. In particular, assessing the functional impact of cognitive impairment is recommended by regulatory authorities, but there is no consensus on the optimal approach for outcome assessment in dementia research. Our aim was to describe the outcome measures used in dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) intervention studies, with particular interest in those evaluating patient-centred outcomes of functional performance and quality of life. We performed a focused review of the literature with multiple embedded checks of internal and external validity. We used the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of dementia studies, ALOIS. ALOIS was searched to obtain records of all registered dementia and MCI intervention studies over a 10-year period (2004-2014). We included both published and unpublished materials. Outcomes were categorised as cognitive, functional, quality of life, mood, behaviour, global/disease severity and institutionalisation. From an initial return of 3271 records, we included a total of 805 records, including 676 dementia trial records and 129 MCI trial records. Of these, 78 % (630) originated from peer-reviewed publications and 60 % (487) reported results of pharmacological interventions. Cognitive outcomes were reported in 70 % (563), in contrast with 29 % (237) reporting measures of functional performance and only 13 % (102) reporting quality of life measures. We identified significant heterogeneity in the tools used to capture these outcomes, with frequent use of non-standardised tests. This focus on cognitive performance questions the extent to which intervention studies for dementia are evaluating outcome measures which are relevant to individual patients and their carers. The heterogeneity in measures, use of bespoke tools and poor descriptions of test strategy all support the need for a more standardised approach to the conduct and reporting of outcomes assessments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 20%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 30 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,870,535
of 20,275,020 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#827
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,930
of 414,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#53
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,275,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 414,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.