Cited by 34Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Controlling for selective dropout in longitudinal dementia data: Application to the SveDem registry

Open access
Handels, Ron, Jönsson, Linus, Garcia‐Ptacek, Sara, Eriksdotter, Maria, Wimo, Anders·2020·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Introduction: Loss to follow‐up in dementia studies is common and related to cognition, which worsens over time. We aimed to (1) describe dropout and missing cognitive data in the Swedish dementia registry, SveDem; (2) identify factors associated with dropout; and (3) estimate propensity scores and use them to adjust for dropout. Methods: Longitudinal cognitive data were obtained from 53,880 persons from the SveDem national quality dementia registry. Inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCWs) were estimated using a logistic regression model on dropout. Results: The mean annualized rate of change in Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) in those with a low MMSE (0 to 10) was likely underestimated in the complete case analysis (+1.5 points/year) versus the IPCW analysis (−0.3 points/year). Discussion: Handling dropout by IPCWs resulted in plausible estimates of cognitive decline. This method is likely of value to adjust for biased dropout in longitudinal cohorts of dementia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/alz.12050

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The analysis included inverse probability of censoring weighting to account for dropout or competing risk before the end of follow-up such as death.

    “We also included the inverse probability of censoring weighting considering the potential effects of dropout or to the presence of a competing risk before the end of follow-up such as death [40].”

    From Antidepressant use and cognitive decline in patients with dementia: a national cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Methods (Statistical analysis; page unavailable) describe using inverse probability of censoring weights to account for dropout. But they define dropout to exclude cases where death occurred within the subsequent year, so the paper does not support the claim that its weighting also accounted for death as a competing risk. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. 10.3233/JAD-131856 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Andersen K, 2010, Very mild to severe dementia and mortality: a 14‐year follow‐up–the Odense study, Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 29, 61, 10.1159/000265553 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/psyg.12053 · DOI
  4. La Rue A, 1987, Methodological concerns: longitudinal studies of dementia, Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord, 1, 180, 10.1097/00002093-198701030-00010 · DOI
  5. Burke SL, 2018, Factors influencing attrition in 35 Alzheimer's Disease Centers across the USA: a longitudinal examination of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's Uniform Data Set, Aging Clin Exp Res
  6. 10.1159/000144087 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.05.006 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1177/0962280210395740 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/sim.1821 · DOI
  11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0116538 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxx045 · DOI
  14. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c311b2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Handels, R., Jönsson, L., Garcia‐Ptacek, S., Eriksdotter, M., & Wimo, A.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Department for Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Division of Clinical Geriatrics Karolinska Institutet Huddinge Sweden
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Handels, Ron
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03-22
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
789-796
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W3012855277
Cited by
34
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2016‐02317)
  • Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd (2017‐0164)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
loss to follow-up
MeSH terms
Mental Status and Dementia Tests, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Dementia, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Registries, Sweden, Lost to Follow-Up

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review