Home › Research › Treatments
Assessing quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for clinical trials
Kahle-Wrobleski K, Ye W, Henley D, Hake AM, Siemers E, Chen YF, Liu-Seifert H.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2016-12-13
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Introduction Characterization of the quality of life (QOL) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) scale within the context of a clinical trial may inform its applicability in future trials. Methods Using data from 1322 patients enrolled in two phase-III studies (EXPEDITION 1 [NCT00905372] and 2 [NCT00904683]) of intravenous solanezumab in outpatients with mild AD dementia, correlations between patient- and caregiver-assessed QOL and between QOL and clinical outcome measures were examined. Longitudinal effects of solanezumab over 80 weeks were explored, controlling for patient and caregiver baseline characteristics. Results Caregivers rated patients' QOL worse than did patients themselves. Patients' QOL was correlated, albeit modestly, with clinical/health measures. Patients' QOL changed minimally over 80 weeks, although a treatment effect of solanezumab on QOL was detected. Discussion Further investigations are needed to determine the optimal measures with which to quantify and qualify QOL of patients with mild AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kahle-Wrobleski, K., Ye, W., Henley, D., Hake, A. M., Siemers, E., Chen, Y. F., et al. (2017). Assessing quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for clinical trials. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2016.11.004
Vancouver
Kahle-Wrobleski K, Ye W, Henley D, Hake AM, Siemers E, Chen YF, et al. Assessing quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for clinical trials. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2017. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2016.11.004. PMID: 28229126.
BibTeX
@article{kahlewrobleski2017-28229126,
author = {Kahle-Wrobleski, K. and Ye, W. and Henley, D. and Hake, A. M. and Siemers, E. and Chen, Y. F. and Liu-Seifert, H.},
title = {{Assessing quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for clinical trials}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.dadm.2016.11.004},
pmid = {28229126},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2016.11.004}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Caregivers rated patients' QOL worse than did patients themselves.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants1,322
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,322 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28229126) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “clinical-trials”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “clinical-trials”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.