Quantitative Analysis of Factors of Attrition in a Double-blind rTMS Study for Alzheimer Treatment.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1097/WAD.0000000000000633
Carly A Bretecher, Ashley Verot, James M Teschuk, Maria A Uehara, Paul B Fitzgerald, Lisa Koski, Brian J Lithgow, Zahra Moussavi
{"title":"Quantitative Analysis of Factors of Attrition in a Double-blind rTMS Study for Alzheimer Treatment.","authors":"Carly A Bretecher, Ashley Verot, James M Teschuk, Maria A Uehara, Paul B Fitzgerald, Lisa Koski, Brian J Lithgow, Zahra Moussavi","doi":"10.1097/WAD.0000000000000633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Attrition is a particular concern in studies examining the efficacy of a treatment for Alzheimer disease. Analyzing reasons for withdrawal in Alzheimer studies is crucial to ruling out attrition bias, which can undermine a study's validity. In contrast, attrition in studies using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has received much less attention. Our goal was to identify any commonalities between participants who withdrew for the same reasons. Three independent coders rated each response concerning the reasons for withdrawal, and frequency tables were generated to characterize the participants within each category. This study was conducted on the 28 withdrawn cases from a 7-month study investigating the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of rTMS for Alzheimer disease among 156 participants across 3 sites of the study. Seven reasons for withdrawal were identified, with health and medical changes being the most commonly reported reason (7 participants). Personal issues involving family or caregivers were the next most common (5 participants), and the remaining 5 categories consisted of 3 participants each. Although the limited sample size prevented the use of inferential statistics, our findings highlight the need for more transparent reporting of attrition rates and withdrawal reasons by rTMS researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":7679,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000633","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Attrition is a particular concern in studies examining the efficacy of a treatment for Alzheimer disease. Analyzing reasons for withdrawal in Alzheimer studies is crucial to ruling out attrition bias, which can undermine a study's validity. In contrast, attrition in studies using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has received much less attention. Our goal was to identify any commonalities between participants who withdrew for the same reasons. Three independent coders rated each response concerning the reasons for withdrawal, and frequency tables were generated to characterize the participants within each category. This study was conducted on the 28 withdrawn cases from a 7-month study investigating the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of rTMS for Alzheimer disease among 156 participants across 3 sites of the study. Seven reasons for withdrawal were identified, with health and medical changes being the most commonly reported reason (7 participants). Personal issues involving family or caregivers were the next most common (5 participants), and the remaining 5 categories consisted of 3 participants each. Although the limited sample size prevented the use of inferential statistics, our findings highlight the need for more transparent reporting of attrition rates and withdrawal reasons by rTMS researchers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经颅磁刺激治疗老年痴呆症双盲研究中自然减员因素的定量分析
在研究阿尔茨海默病的疗效时,自然减员是一个特别值得关注的问题。分析阿尔茨海默病研究中退出研究的原因对于排除减员偏差至关重要,因为减员偏差会破坏研究的有效性。相比之下,在使用重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)的研究中,自然减员受到的关注要少得多。我们的目标是找出因相同原因退出研究的参与者之间的共性。三名独立的编码员对每个退出原因的回答进行评分,并生成频数表来描述每个类别中参与者的特征。本研究对一项为期 7 个月的研究中的 28 个退出病例进行了分析,该研究调查了经颅磁刺激疗法对阿尔茨海默病的短期和长期治疗效果,共有 156 名参与者参加了这项研究,涉及 3 个研究地点。研究发现了七种退出治疗的原因,其中健康和医疗变化是最常见的原因(7 名参与者)。其次是涉及家人或照顾者的个人问题(5 人),其余 5 个类别各有 3 人退出。虽然样本数量有限,无法使用推理统计,但我们的研究结果突出表明,经颅磁刺激研究人员需要更透明地报告减员率和退出原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: ​Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal directed to an audience of clinicians and researchers, with primary emphasis on Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. The journal publishes original articles emphasizing research in humans including epidemiologic studies, clinical trials and experimental studies, studies of diagnosis and biomarkers, as well as research on the health of persons with dementia and their caregivers. The scientific portion of the journal is augmented by reviews of the current literature, concepts, conjectures, and hypotheses in dementia, brief reports, and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
The Difference in Cognitive Profiles Between Patients With Alzheimer Dementia With and Without Psychosis: A Rapid Review. Mapping the Landscape of Those Left Behind When a Person With Dementia Dies: Roles of Race and Ethnicity. DXA-Measured Abdominal Adipose Depots and Structural Brain Integrity in Postmenopausal Women. Association of Moderate and Vigorous Physical Activity With Cognitive Performance: Evidence From Brazil. Incidence of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias in Iran From 2010 to 2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1