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. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

PET participants lived longer in community (0.26 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.45) and overall (0.15, CI: 0.02 to 0.27), but did not have statistically different health insurance (€703, CI: -3974 to 5045) or total costs including institutionalization (-€8258, CI: -20,622 to 3377). The probability that PET was cost-effective for extending time in community was 76% at a €2530 willingness-to-pay threshold. The probability that PET yielded cost savings and was more effective for extending time alive was 90%. Findings in this observational cohort suggest that using amyloid PET in memory clinics may be cost-effective. HIGHLIGHTS: Participants with an amyloid PET in a memory clinic work-up were compared to those without.The amyloid PET group spent more time in community and alive over 5 years of follow-up.Amyloid PET had a 76% chance to cost-effectively extend time in community in uncertainty analysis.

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

APA 7th

van der Veere, P. J., Broulikova, H. M., Hoogland, J., van Maurik, I. S., van de Giessen, E., van Harten, A. C., et al. (2025). Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70210

Vancouver

van der Veere PJ, Broulikova HM, Hoogland J, van Maurik IS, van de Giessen E, van Harten AC, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2025. doi:10.1002/dad2.70210. PMID: 41195193.

BibTeX

@article{vanderveere2025-41195193,
  author  = {van der Veere, Pieter J and Broulikova, Hana M and Hoogland, Jeroen and van Maurik, Ingrid S and van de Giessen, Elsmarieke and van Harten, Argonde C and Bosmans, Judith E and Berkhof, Johannes and others},
  title   = {{Long-term cost-effectiveness of a more accurate diagnostic work-up for dementia}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1002/dad2.70210},
  pmid    = {41195193},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70210}
}

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

PET participants lived longer in community (0.26 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.45) and overall (0.15, CI: 0.02 to 0.27), but did not have statistically different health insurance (€703, CI: -3974 to 5045) or total costs including institutionalization (-€8258, CI: -20,622 to 3377).
The probability that PET was cost-effective for extending time in community was 76% at a €2530 willingness-to-pay threshold.
The probability that PET yielded cost savings and was more effective for extending time alive was 90%.
Findings in this observational cohort suggest that using amyloid PET in memory clinics may be cost-effective.
HIGHLIGHTS: Participants with an amyloid PET in a memory clinic work-up were compared to those without.The amyloid PET group spent more time in community and alive over 5 years of follow-up.Amyloid PET had a 76% chance to cost-effectively extend time in community in uncertainty analysis.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →

Study details

Participants440
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, 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, 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	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	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	440 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 41195193)
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.

Related studies in Costs and economics

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 Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →