| Title |
The Patient in Your Alzheimer’s Disease Study May be in Another: Duplication and Deception in Clinical Trials of Alzheimer’s Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, January 2020
|
| DOI | 10.14283/jpad.2020.3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Shiovitz, B. Steinmiller, C. Steinmetz, S. Perez, R. Oseas |
| Abstract |
Duplicate and deceptive subjects, a significant issue in CNS studies, are not often considered in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) clinical trials. However, AD patients and their study partners may be motivated to take advantage of different mechanisms of action, increase odds of receiving active treatment, and/or obtain financial compensation, which may lead them to participate in multiple studies. CTSdatabase reviewed memory loss subjects (n=1087) from January 2017 through May 2019 to determine how many attempted to screen at multiple sites. 117 subjects (10.8%) visited more than one site within two years. When these potential AD subjects went to additional sites, it was predominantly for non-memory indications (often MDD or schizophrenia). For those that participated in studies, the rate of duplication approached 4% of screened AD subjects. This data indicates that significant numbers of AD subjects attempt to enroll at multiple sites, which confounds efficacy and safety signals in clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 4 | 67% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 20% |
| Researcher | 1 | 20% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,082,784
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#252
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,460
of 473,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#37
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 473,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.