This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Objective In view of proposed screening for presymptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD) with advanced imaging, and blood and cerebral spinal fluid analysis, we aimed to establish levels, and associations, of acceptance of AD testing modalities by general practice patients. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of consecutive patients (aged 50 years and over) of general practices of an Australian practice-based research network was used. The questionnaire elicited demographic data and attitudes to screening for other diseases and included the screening acceptance domain of the Perceptions Regarding Investigational Screening for Memory in Primary Care (PRISM-PC) instrument. This assesses receptivity to modalities of testing for AD: short questionnaire, blood test, cerebral imaging, and annual physician examination. Reflecting speculation of possible future AD diagnostic methods, an item regarding testing cerebral spinal fluid was also included. Associations of PRISM-PC scores were analyzed with multiple linear regression. Results Of 489 participants (response rate 87%), 66.2% would like to know if they had AD. Participants were more accepting of testing modalities that were noninvasive or familiar (questionnaire, physician's examination, and blood test) as opposed to cerebral imaging or lumbar puncture. Attitudes to AD testing are influenced by a positive attitude to disease screening in general. Patients with a self-perceived higher risk of AD were less accepting of testing, as were participants with an educational level of junior high school (10 school years) or less. Conclusions This study demonstrates that a majority of patients would like to know if they have AD. Acceptability of testing modalities, however, varies. Noninvasive, familiar methods are more acceptable.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Magin, P., Juratowitch, L., Dunbabin, J., McElduff, P., Goode, S., Tapley, A., et al. (2016). Attitudes to Alzheimer's disease testing of Australian general practice patients: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4335

Vancouver

Magin P, Juratowitch L, Dunbabin J, McElduff P, Goode S, Tapley A, et al. Attitudes to Alzheimer's disease testing of Australian general practice patients: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2016. doi:10.1002/gps.4335. PMID: 26258761.

BibTeX

@article{magin2016-26258761,
  author  = {Magin, P. and Juratowitch, L. and Dunbabin, J. and McElduff, P. and Goode, S. and Tapley, A. and Pond, D.},
  title   = {{Attitudes to Alzheimer's disease testing of Australian general practice patients: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1002/gps.4335},
  pmid    = {26258761},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4335}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record lists 489 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “66.2%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Of 489 participants (response rate 87%), 66.2% would like to know if they had AD.
Patients with a self-perceived higher risk of AD were less accepting of testing, as were participants with an educational level of junior high school (10 school years) or less.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants489
Effect size66.2%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	489 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 26258761)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	32 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total	55 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “testing”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “testing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →