↓ Skip to main content

A review of clinical trial designs used to detect a disease-modifying effect of drug therapy in Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
A review of clinical trial designs used to detect a disease-modifying effect of drug therapy in Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease
Published in
BMC Neurology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12883-016-0606-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. M. McGhee, Craig W. Ritchie, John P. Zajicek, Carl E. Counsell

Abstract

Disease-modification clinical trials in neurodegenerative disorders have struggled to separate symptomatic effects of putative agents from disease-modification. In response, a variety of clinical trial designs have been developed. A systematic review was undertaken to examine which trial designs have been used in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) to detect disease-modifying, as opposed to symptomatic, drug effects. In addition we aimed to identify novel clinical trial designs used in the past or planned for use in the future. We aimed to critique whether the methods used would have identified true disease-modification. MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL (1980-2015) were searched to identify papers meriting review in full. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify unpublished or planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs in PD or AD which aimed to demonstrate the disease-modifying properties of drug therapy and differentiate that benefit from any symptomatic effect. 128 RCTs were finally included: 84 in AD (59 published, 25 unpublished); 44 in PD (36 published, 8 unpublished). A variety of clinical trial designs were applied including long-term follow-up, wash-in and wash-out analyses, randomised delayed-start, the use of time-to-event outcome measures and surrogate disease progression biomarkers. Deficiencies in each of these design strategies, the quantity of missing data in included RCTs and the methods used to deal with missing data, meant that none of the included studies convincingly demonstrated disease-modification. No truly novel clinical trial designs were identified. We currently believe that the best clinical trial design available to demonstrate disease-modification is a long-term follow-up study, in which an examination is made for sustained divergence in outcome measures between treatment arms over the study period.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Master 16 13%
Other 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 27%
Neuroscience 14 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,838,155
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#163
of 2,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,410
of 326,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#8
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 326,206 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.