↓ Skip to main content

Disclosure of amyloid positron emission tomography results to individuals without dementia: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Disclosure of amyloid positron emission tomography results to individuals without dementia: a systematic review
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13195-018-0398-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arno de Wilde, Marieke M. van Buchem, René H. J. Otten, Femke Bouwman, Andrew Stephens, Frederik Barkhof, Philip Scheltens, Wiesje M. van der Flier

Abstract

Disclosure of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results to individuals without dementia has become standard practice in secondary prevention trials and also increasingly occurs in clinical practice. However, this is controversial given the current lack of understanding of the predictive value of a PET result at the individual level and absence of disease-modifying treatments. In this study, we systematically reviewed the literature on the disclosure of amyloid PET in cognitively normal (CN) individuals and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in both research and clinical settings. We performed a systematic literature search of four scientific databases. Two independent reviewers screened the identified records and selected relevant articles. Included articles presented either empirical data or theoretical data (i.e. arguments in favor or against amyloid status disclosure). Results from the theoretical data were aggregated and presented per theme. Of the seventeen included studies, eleven reported empirical data and six provided theoretical arguments. There was a large variation in the design of the empirical studies, which were almost exclusively in the context of cognitively normal trial participants, comprising only two prospective cohort studies quantitatively assessing the psychological impact of PET result disclosure which showed a low risk of psychological harm after disclosure. Four studies showed that both professionals and cognitively normal individuals support amyloid PET result disclosure and underlined the need for clear disclosure protocols. From the articles presenting theoretical data, we identified 51 'pro' and 'contra' arguments. Theoretical arguments in favor or against disclosure were quite consistent across population groups and settings. Arguments against disclosure focused on the principle of non-maleficence, whereas its psychological impact and predictive value is unknown. Important arguments in favor of amyloid disclosure are the patients right to know (patient autonomy) and that it enables early future decision making. Before amyloid PET result disclosure in individuals without dementia in a research or clinical setting is ready for widespread application, more research is needed about its psychological impact, and its predictive value at an individual level. Finally, communication materials and strategies to support disclosure of amyloid PET results should be further developed and prospectively evaluated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Psychology 11 14%
Neuroscience 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,171,098
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#812
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,168
of 330,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#35
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 330,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.