Home › Research › Treatments
A Combined Measure of Cognition and Function for Clinical Trials: The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS)
Wessels AM, Siemers ER, Yu P, Andersen SW, Holdridge KC, Sims JR, Sundell K, Stern Y et al.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2015-12-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
It is generally recognized that more sensitive instruments for the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are needed. The integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) combines scores from 2 widely accepted measures, the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). Disease progression and treatment differences as measured by the iADRS were analyzed using data from solanezumab EXPEDITION, EXPEDITION2, and EXPEDITION-EXT Studies; semagacestat IDENTITY Study; and donepezil ADCS - mild cognitive impairment (ADCS-MCI) Study. Psychometric properties of the iADRS were established through principal component analysis (PCA) and estimation of contributions of subscores and individual item scores to the iADRS total score. The iADRS performed better than most composites and scales in detecting disease progression and comparably or better than individual scales in detecting treatment differences. PCA demonstrated the iADRS can be divided into two principal components primarily representing cognitive items and instrumental ADLs. Dynamic ranges of the subscales were similar across all studies, reflecting approximately equal contributions from both subscales to the iADRS total score. In item analyses, every item contributed to the total score, with varying strength of contributions by item and across data sets. The iADRS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and was effective in capturing disease progression from MCI through moderate AD and treatment effects across the early disease spectrum. These findings suggest the iADRS can be used in studies of mixed populations, ensuring sensitivity to treatment effects as subjects progress during studies of putative disease-modifying agents.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wessels, A. M., Siemers, E. R., Yu, P., Andersen, S. W., Holdridge, K. C., Sims, JR., et al. (2015). A Combined Measure of Cognition and Function for Clinical Trials: The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS). The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2015.82
Vancouver
Wessels AM, Siemers ER, Yu P, Andersen SW, Holdridge KC, Sims JR, et al. A Combined Measure of Cognition and Function for Clinical Trials: The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS). The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2015. doi:10.14283/jpad.2015.82. PMID: 27019841.
BibTeX
@article{wessels2015-27019841,
author = {Wessels, A. M. and Siemers, E. R. and Yu, P. and Andersen, S. W. and Holdridge, K. C. and Sims, JR. and Sundell, K. and Stern, Y. and others},
title = {{A Combined Measure of Cognition and Function for Clinical Trials: The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS)}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2015.82},
pmid = {27019841},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2015.82}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- PCA demonstrated the iADRS can be divided into two principal components primarily representing cognitive items and instrumental ADLs.
- The iADRS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and was effective in capturing disease progression from MCI through moderate AD and treatment effects across the early disease spectrum.
- These findings suggest the iADRS can be used in studies of mixed populations, ensuring sensitivity to treatment effects as subjects progress during studies of putative disease-modifying agents.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27019841) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.