Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Weuve J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4655106 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Weuve Jennifer J Proust-Lima Cécile C Power Melinda C MC Gross Alden L AL Hofer Scott M SM Thiébaut Rodolphe R Chêne Geneviève G Glymour M Maria MM Dufouil Carole C

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 20150901 9

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 categorie ...[more]

PMID: 26397878

Similar Datasets

Project description:The interest in bone marrow adiposity (BMA) has increased over the last decade due to its association with, and potential role, in a range of diseases (osteoporosis, diabetes, anorexia, cancer) as well as treatments (corticosteroid, radiation, chemotherapy, thiazolidinediones). However, to advance the field of BMA research, standardization of methods is desirable to increase comparability of study outcomes and foster collaboration. Therefore, at the 2017 annual BMA meeting, the International Bone Marrow Adiposity Society (BMAS) founded a working group to evaluate methodologies in BMA research. All BMAS members could volunteer to participate. The working group members, who are all active preclinical or clinical BMA researchers, searched the literature for articles investigating BMA and discussed the results during personal and telephone conferences. According to the consensus opinion, both based on the review of the literature and on expert opinion, we describe existing methodologies and discuss the challenges and future directions for (1) histomorphometry of bone marrow adipocytes, (2) ex vivo BMA imaging, (3) in vivo BMA imaging, (4) cell isolation, culture, differentiation and in vitro modulation of primary bone marrow adipocytes and bone marrow stromal cell precursors, (5) lineage tracing and in vivo BMA modulation, and (6) BMA biobanking. We identify as accepted standards in BMA research: manual histomorphometry and osmium tetroxide 3D contrast-enhanced ?CT for ex vivo quantification, specific MRI sequences (WFI and H-MRS) for in vivo studies, and RT-qPCR with a minimal four gene panel or lipid-based assays for in vitro quantification of bone marrow adipogenesis. Emerging techniques are described which may soon come to complement or substitute these gold standards. Known confounding factors and minimal reporting standards are presented, and their use is encouraged to facilitate comparison across studies. In conclusion, specific BMA methodologies have been developed. However, important challenges remain. In particular, we advocate for the harmonization of methodologies, the precise reporting of known confounding factors, and the identification of methods to modulate BMA independently from other tissues. Wider use of existing animal models with impaired BMA production (e.g., Pfrt -/-, KitW/W-v) and development of specific BMA deletion models would be highly desirable for this purpose.

Project description:IntroductionMethodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool-the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist-to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies.Methods and analysisWe will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Ethics and disseminationThe consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites.RegistrationWe have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure