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.

59/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Most caregivers (72.0%) favored BBBM for AD diagnosis. Provided with hypothetical scenarios, confidence in a normal result decreased significantly if experienced symptoms were more severe (mild: 78.5% vs. severe: 48.6%). Caregivers' attitudes toward BBBM for screening purposes significantly improved with prospect of treatment (53.3% vs. 92.5%). Concerns toward BBBM testing included treatment unavailability, increased/prolonged distress, and AD-related stigma. Potential benefits were actionability, explanation for symptoms, and opportunities for better care and future treatment. Emerging AD treatment and reduction of AD-related stigma could profoundly increase public interest in BBBM testing for AD. HIGHLIGHTS: Most informal caregivers would want blood-based biomarker (BBBM) testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis.Perceived (dis)advantages were related to diagnosing AD early.With severe symptoms, there was less confidence in normal BBBM results.Treatment availability would significantly increase interest in BBBM testing for AD.Informal caregivers showed uncertainty regarding the meaning of the term "AD."

Key findings

Most caregivers (72.0%) favored BBBM for AD diagnosis.
Provided with hypothetical scenarios, confidence in a normal result decreased significantly if experienced symptoms were more severe (mild: 78.5% vs. severe: 48.6%).
Caregivers' attitudes toward BBBM for screening purposes significantly improved with prospect of treatment (53.3% vs. 92.5%).
Concerns toward BBBM testing included treatment unavailability, increased/prolonged distress, and AD-related stigma.
Potential benefits were actionability, explanation for symptoms, and opportunities for better care and future treatment.

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

Study details

Participants107
Effect size72.0%; 78.5%; 48.6%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 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	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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	107 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)
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 38371360)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	33 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total	59 / 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.

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

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 8 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.

APA 7th

Bolsewig, K., Blok, H., Willemse, E. A. J., Zwaaftink, R. B. M. G., Kooistra, M., Smets, E. M. A., et al. (2024). Caregivers' attitudes toward blood-based biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12549

Vancouver

Bolsewig K, Blok H, Willemse EAJ, Zwaaftink RBMG, Kooistra M, Smets EMA, et al. Caregivers' attitudes toward blood-based biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2024. doi:10.1002/dad2.12549. PMID: 38371360.

BibTeX

@article{bolsewig2024-38371360,
  author  = {Bolsewig, Katharina and Blok, Hester and Willemse, Eline A J and Zwaaftink, Rob B M Groot and Kooistra, Minke and Smets, Ellen M A and Teunissen, Charlotte E and Visser, Leonie N C},
  title   = {{Caregivers' attitudes toward blood-based biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1002/dad2.12549},
  pmid    = {38371360},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12549}
}

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →