Home › Research › Drug development
Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessments of function in prodromal-to-mild Alzheimer's disease: A comparison of the ADCS-ADL and A-IADL-Q scales
Teng E, Li Y, Manser PT, Pickthorn K, Butcher BD, Blendstrup M, Randolph C, Sikkes SAM.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023-04-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Prior observational work in a heterogeneous cohort of participants with mild cognitive impairment suggests the Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (A-IADL-Q) may have greater sensitivity for functional decline than the more established Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale. However, the relative utility of the A-IADL-Q versus the ADCS-ADL for clinical trials in early Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains uncertain. Methods We compared baseline and longitudinal performance of the A-IADL-Q and ADCS-ADL in participants with biomarker-confirmed prodromal (pAD; n = 158) or mild (mAD; n = 283) AD enrolled in the 18-month Tauriel study of semorinemab (NCT03289143). Results The A-IADL-Q exhibited numerically stronger discrimination between pAD and mAD participants at baseline per Cohen's d analyses and similar sensitivity to longitudinal decline across cohorts over 18 months relative to the ADCS-ADL. Discussion The comparable performance of the ADCS-ADL and A-IADL-Q supports the utility of the A-IADL-Q in early AD clinical trials. Highlights The Amsterdam Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (A-IADL-Q) may be more sensitive than the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL) for distinguishing prodromal and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD).A-IADL-Q and ADCS-ADL are similarly sensitive to decline in early AD over 18 months.Comparable performance of these indices supports A-IADL-Q use in future AD trials.Additional AD clinical trial data could extend findings across more diverse cohorts.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Teng, E., Li, Y., Manser, P. T., Pickthorn, K., Butcher, B. D., Blendstrup, M., et al. (2023). Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessments of function in prodromal-to-mild Alzheimer's disease: A comparison of the ADCS-ADL and A-IADL-Q scales. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12452
Vancouver
Teng E, Li Y, Manser PT, Pickthorn K, Butcher BD, Blendstrup M, et al. Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessments of function in prodromal-to-mild Alzheimer's disease: A comparison of the ADCS-ADL and A-IADL-Q scales. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2023. doi:10.1002/dad2.12452. PMID: 37325545.
BibTeX
@article{teng2023-37325545,
author = {Teng, E. and Li, Y. and Manser, P. T. and Pickthorn, K. and Butcher, B. D. and Blendstrup, M. and Randolph, C. and Sikkes, S. A. M.},
title = {{Cross-sectional and longitudinal assessments of function in prodromal-to-mild Alzheimer's disease: A comparison of the ADCS-ADL and A-IADL-Q scales}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.12452},
pmid = {37325545},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12452}
}
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.
Key findings
- However, the relative utility of the A-IADL-Q versus the ADCS-ADL for clinical trials in early Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains uncertain.
- Results The A-IADL-Q exhibited numerically stronger discrimination between pAD and mAD participants at baseline per Cohen's d analyses and similar sensitivity to longitudinal decline across cohorts over 18 months relative to the ADCS-ADL.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants158
- 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 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 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 158 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) |
| 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 37325545) |
| 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 Drug development
Also tagged “cross-sectional”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cross-sectional”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.