Home › Research › Disparities
Perspective on the "African American participation in Alzheimer disease research: Effective strategies" workshop, 2018
Andrea Denny, Marissa Streitz, Kristin Stock, Joyce E Balls-Berry, Lisa L Barnes, Goldie S Byrd, Raina Croff, Sujuan Gao et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2020-08-17
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The Washington University School of Medicine Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center's "African American Participation in Alzheimer Disease Research: Effective Strategies" Workshop convened to address a major limitation of the ongoing scientific progress regarding Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD): participants in most ADRD research programs overwhelmingly have been limited to non-Hispanic white persons, thus precluding knowledge as to how ADRD may be represented in non-white individuals. Factors that may contribute to successful recruitment and retention of African Americans into ADRD research were discussed and organized into actionable next steps as described within this report.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Denny, A., Streitz, M., Stock, K., Balls-Berry, J. E., Barnes, L. L., Byrd, G. S., et al. (2020). Perspective on the "African American participation in Alzheimer disease research: Effective strategies" workshop, 2018. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12160
Vancouver
Denny A, Streitz M, Stock K, Balls-Berry JE, Barnes LL, Byrd GS, et al. Perspective on the "African American participation in Alzheimer disease research: Effective strategies" workshop, 2018. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2020. doi:10.1002/alz.12160. PMID: 33034414.
BibTeX
@article{denny2020-33034414,
author = {Denny, Andrea and Streitz, Marissa and Stock, Kristin and Balls-Berry, Joyce E and Barnes, Lisa L and Byrd, Goldie S and Croff, Raina and Gao, Sujuan and others},
title = {{Perspective on the "African American participation in Alzheimer disease research: Effective strategies" workshop, 2018}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1002/alz.12160},
pmid = {33034414},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12160}
}
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
- The Washington University School of Medicine Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center's "African American Participation in Alzheimer Disease Research: Effective Strategies" Workshop convened to address a major limitation of the ongoing scientific progress regarding Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD): participants in most ADRD research programs overwhelmingly have been limited to non-Hispanic white persons, thus precluding knowledge as to how ADRD may be represented in non-white individuals.
- Factors that may contribute to successful recruitment and retention of African Americans into ADRD research were discussed and organized into actionable next steps as described within this report.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 33034414) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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 Disparities
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.