Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research
| dc.contributor.author | Weuve, Jennifer | |
| dc.contributor.author | Proust-Lima, Cecile | |
| dc.contributor.author | Power, Melinda C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gross, Alden L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hofer, Scott M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Thiebaut, Rodolphe | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chene, Genevieve | |
| dc.contributor.author | Glymour, M. Maria | |
| dc.contributor.author | Dufouil for the MELODEM Initiative, Carole | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-05-14T18:20:05Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-05-14T18:20:05Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015 | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
| dc.description.reviewstatus | Reviewed | en_US |
| dc.description.scholarlevel | Faculty | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Role of the funding source: The MELODEM initiative has been supported by the “Fondation Plan Alzheimer.” J.W. was supported by NIEHS grant R21ES020404 and Alzheimer's Association grant NIRG-12-242395. M.C.P. was supported by NIA grant T32 AG027668. A.L.G. was supported by NIA grant R03AG045494. S.M.H. was supported by NIA grants P01AG043362 and R01AG026453. M.M.G. was supported by NIA grant R21 AG034385. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. None of the funding source has any influence on the content of this position article. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Weuve, J., Proust-Lima, C., Power, M.C., Gross, A.L., Hofer, S.M.,Thiebaut, R., … Dufouil, C. (2015). Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 11, 1098-1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1828/9361 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association | en_US |
| dc.subject | Alzheimer disease | |
| dc.subject | Dementia | |
| dc.subject | Neuropsychological tests | |
| dc.subject | Longitudinal studies | |
| dc.subject | Epidemiologic factors | |
| dc.subject | Statistical models | |
| dc.subject | Selection bias | |
| dc.subject | Survival bias | |
| dc.subject | Big data | |
| dc.subject | Genomics | |
| dc.subject | Brain imaging | |
| dc.subject | Institute on Aging and Lifelong Health | |
| dc.subject.department | Department of Psychology | |
| dc.title | Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |