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.

16/100

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Results All four phases were successful and this report details this development process leading to the first condition-specific preference-based measures in dementia, an important new development in this field. Conclusion The results presented are sufficiently encouraging to recommend that the DEMQOL instruments be used alongside a generic measure such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in future studies of interventions in dementia as there was evidence that they can be more sensitive for patients at the milder end of disease and some limited evidence that the person with dementia measure may be able to reflect deterioration.

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

APA 7th

Mulhern, B., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Smith, S., Romeo, R., Tait, R., et al. (2013). Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-PROXY for use in economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17050

Vancouver

Mulhern B, Rowen D, Brazier J, Smith S, Romeo R, Tait R, et al. Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-PROXY for use in economic evaluation. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2013. doi:10.3310/hta17050. PMID: 23402232.

BibTeX

@article{mulhern2013-23402232,
  author  = {Mulhern, B. and Rowen, D. and Brazier, J. and Smith, S. and Romeo, R. and Tait, R. and Watchurst, C. and Chua, K. C. and others},
  title   = {{Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-PROXY for use in economic evaluation}},
  journal = {Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.3310/hta17050},
  pmid    = {23402232},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17050}
}

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

Results All four phases were successful and this report details this development process leading to the first condition-specific preference-based measures in dementia, an important new development in this field.
Conclusion The results presented are sufficiently encouraging to recommend that the DEMQOL instruments be used alongside a generic measure such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in future studies of interventions in dementia as there was evidence that they can be more sensitive for patients at the milder end of disease and some limited evidence that the person with dementia measure may be able to reflect deterioration.

Why it matters

This study developed preference-based measures from the DEMQOL instruments for use in economic evaluation of dementia interventions. It does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →

Study details

Study designclinical trial
Participants644
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 16/100

Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 39 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Health technology assessment (Winchester, England))
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	0 / 12	Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	3 / 10	Report — not peer-reviewed. Named source is an organisational report, not a journal article.
How recent	1 / 5	2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	644 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	5 / 7	Cited 174 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	11.6 citations a year over 15 year(s) since 2013
Impact for its field and year	5 / 6	Cited 31.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 26 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Sube Banerjee: h-index 75 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23402232)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	39 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Disparities

Also in Disparities

98 studies in the library are filed under Disparities with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Disparities hub.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →