↓ Skip to main content

The Edinburgh Consensus: preparing for the advent of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
68 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The Edinburgh Consensus: preparing for the advent of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13195-017-0312-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig W. Ritchie, Tom C. Russ, Sube Banerjee, Bob Barber, Andrew Boaden, Nick C. Fox, Clive Holmes, Jeremy D. Isaacs, Ira Leroi, Simon Lovestone, Matt Norton, John O’Brien, Jim Pearson, Richard Perry, James Pickett, Adam D. Waldman, Wai Lup Wong, Martin N. Rossor, Alistair Burns

Abstract

This commentary discusses the implications of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease which seem likely to appear in the next few years and results from a meeting of British experts in neurodegenerative diseases in Edinburgh. The availability of such treatments would help change public and professional attitudes and accelerate engagement with the prodromal and preclinical populations who might benefit from them. However, this would require an updated understanding of Alzheimer's disease, namely the important distinction between Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's dementia. Since treatments are likely to be most effective in the early stages, identification of clinically relevant brain changes (for example, amyloid burden using imaging or cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers) will be crucial. While current biomarkers could be useful in identifying eligibility for new therapies, trial data are not available to aid decisions about stopping or continuing treatment in clinical practice. Therefore, effective monitoring of safety and effectiveness when these treatments are introduced into clinical practice will be necessary to inform wide-scale use. Equity of access is key but there is a tension between universal access for everyone with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and specifying an eligible population most likely to respond. We propose the resources necessary for an optimal care pathway as well as the necessary education and training for primary and secondary care. The majority of current services in the UK and elsewhere would not be able to accommodate the specialist investigations required to select patients and prescribe these therapies. Therefore, a stepped approach would be necessary: from innovating sentinel clinical-academic centres that already have capacity to deliver the necessary phase IV trials, through early adoption in a hub and spoke model, to nationwide adoption for true equity of access. The optimism generated by recent and anticipated developments in the understanding and treatment of Alzheimer's disease presents a great opportunity to innovate and adapt our services to incorporate the next exciting development in the field of dementia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 35 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Psychology 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 43 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 28 October 2019.
All research outputs
#640,787
of 21,321,610 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#66
of 1,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,627
of 340,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#5
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,610 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 340,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.