4.5 Review

Statistical analysis, trial design and duration in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 689-697

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610211001116

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; clinical trials; statistical analysis; surrogate markers; outcome measures

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0707-10124]
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0707-10124] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The social and economic burden of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its increasing prevalence has led to much work on new treatment strategies and clinical trials. The search for surrogate markers of disease progression continues but traditional parallel group trial designs that use well-established, but often insensitive, clinical outcome measures predominate. Methods: We performed a systematic search across the Cochrane Library and PubMed abstracts published between January 2004 and August 2009. Information regarding the clinical trial methodology, outcome measures, intervention type and primary statistical analysis techniques was extracted and categorized, according to a standard protocol. Results: We identified 149 papers describing results from clinical trials in AD containing sufficient detail for our purposes. The largest proportion (38%) presented results of trials based on tests of cognition as the primary outcome measure. The primary analysis in most papers (85%) was a univariate significance test of a single primary outcome measure. Conclusions: The majority of trials reported a comparison of baseline and end-point assessment over relatively short patient follow-up periods, using univariate statistical methods to compare differences between intervention and control groups in the primary analysis. There is considerable scope to introduce newer statistical methods and trial designs in treatment evaluations in AD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据