Cargando…

Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research

Clinical and population research on dementia and related neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, faces several unique methodological challenges. Progress to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies rests on valid and rigorous analytic approaches, but the research literature refle...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weuve, Jennifer, Proust-Lima, Cécile, Power, Melinda C., Gross, Alden L., Hofer, Scott M., Thiébaut, Rodolphe, Chêne, Geneviève, Glymour, M. Maria, Dufouil, Carole
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26397878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885
_version_ 1782402151352369152
author Weuve, Jennifer
Proust-Lima, Cécile
Power, Melinda C.
Gross, Alden L.
Hofer, Scott M.
Thiébaut, Rodolphe
Chêne, Geneviève
Glymour, M. Maria
Dufouil, Carole
author_facet Weuve, Jennifer
Proust-Lima, Cécile
Power, Melinda C.
Gross, Alden L.
Hofer, Scott M.
Thiébaut, Rodolphe
Chêne, Geneviève
Glymour, M. Maria
Dufouil, Carole
author_sort Weuve, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description Clinical and population research on dementia and related neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, faces several unique methodological challenges. Progress to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies rests on valid and rigorous analytic approaches, but the research literature reflects little consensus on “best practices.” We present findings from a large scientific working group on research methods for clinical and population studies of dementia, which identified five categories of methodological challenges as follows: (1) attrition/sample selection, including selective survival; (2) measurement, including uncertainty in diagnostic criteria, measurement error in neuropsychological assessments, and practice or retest effects; (3) specification of longitudinal models when participants are followed for months, years, or even decades; (4) time-varying measurements; and (5) high-dimensional data. We explain why each challenge is important in dementia research and how it could compromise the translation of research findings into effective prevention or care strategies. We advance a checklist of potential sources of bias that should be routinely addressed when reporting dementia research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4655106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46551062015-11-22 Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research Weuve, Jennifer Proust-Lima, Cécile Power, Melinda C. Gross, Alden L. Hofer, Scott M. Thiébaut, Rodolphe Chêne, Geneviève Glymour, M. Maria Dufouil, Carole Alzheimers Dement Article Clinical and population research on dementia and related neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, faces several unique methodological challenges. Progress to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies rests on valid and rigorous analytic approaches, but the research literature reflects little consensus on “best practices.” We present findings from a large scientific working group on research methods for clinical and population studies of dementia, which identified five categories of methodological challenges as follows: (1) attrition/sample selection, including selective survival; (2) measurement, including uncertainty in diagnostic criteria, measurement error in neuropsychological assessments, and practice or retest effects; (3) specification of longitudinal models when participants are followed for months, years, or even decades; (4) time-varying measurements; and (5) high-dimensional data. We explain why each challenge is important in dementia research and how it could compromise the translation of research findings into effective prevention or care strategies. We advance a checklist of potential sources of bias that should be routinely addressed when reporting dementia research. 2015-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4655106/ /pubmed/26397878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Weuve, Jennifer
Proust-Lima, Cécile
Power, Melinda C.
Gross, Alden L.
Hofer, Scott M.
Thiébaut, Rodolphe
Chêne, Geneviève
Glymour, M. Maria
Dufouil, Carole
Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
title Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
title_full Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
title_fullStr Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
title_full_unstemmed Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
title_short Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
title_sort guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26397878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885
work_keys_str_mv AT weuvejennifer guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT proustlimacecile guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT powermelindac guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT grossaldenl guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT hoferscottm guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT thiebautrodolphe guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT chenegenevieve guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT glymourmmaria guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch
AT dufouilcarole guidelinesforreportingmethodologicalchallengesandevaluatingpotentialbiasindementiaresearch