Characterizing Demographic, Racial, and Geographic Diversity in Dementia Research: A Systematic Review | Dementia and Cognitive Impairment | JAMA Neurology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Figure 1.  Sample Sizes of Contemporary Studies of Patients With Dementia
Sample Sizes of Contemporary Studies of Patients With Dementia
Figure 2.  Geographical Diversity of Study Populations From 302 Studies on Dementia Published Between September 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019
Geographical Diversity of Study Populations From 302 Studies on Dementia Published Between September 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019

If populations from multiple countries were included in 1 study, all populations were counted once (unweighted). Of 302 included studies, 153 (51%) included participants from North America and 140 (46%) from Europe. Asia, Australia, South America, and Africa were less represented with 33 (11%), 9 (3%), 5 (2%), and 0 studies including participants from these continents, respectively.

Figure 3.  Distribution of Age at Dementia Diagnosis in Clinic-Based and Population-Based Studies
Distribution of Age at Dementia Diagnosis in Clinic-Based and Population-Based Studies

Blue dotted lines represent the average age across all population-based studies; orange dotted lines represent the average age across clinic-based studies. The mean age of patients with dementia was 8.8 years higher in population-based studies than in clinic-based studies.

Figure 4.  Use of Biomarkers by Study Setting
Use of Biomarkers by Study Setting

Percentages reflect the percentage of studies of a certain study type among all studies using the biomarker. Studies that used multiple biomarkers contributed to each of those biomarkers. None of the included studies conducted in a nursing home or registry setting used any biomarkers. CSF indicates cerebrospinal fluid; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography.

Table.  Characteristics of Study Populations by Study Settinga
Characteristics of Study Populations by Study Settinga
1.
Rothwell  PM.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”   Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82-93. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Canevelli  M, Trebbastoni  A, Quarata  F,  et al.  External validity of randomized controlled trials on Alzheimer’s disease: the biases of frailty and biological aging.   Front Neurol. 2017;8:628. doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00628 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Leinonen  A, Koponen  M, Hartikainen  S.  Systematic review: representativeness of participants in RCTs of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.   PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0124500. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124500 PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Banzi  R, Camaioni  P, Tettamanti  M, Bertele’  V, Lucca  U.  Older patients are still under-represented in clinical trials of Alzheimer’s disease.   Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016;8:32. doi:10.1186/s13195-016-0201-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Brayne  C, Davis  D.  Making Alzheimer’s and dementia research fit for populations.   Lancet. 2012;380(9851):1441-1443. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61803-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Schoenmaker  N, Van Gool  WA.  The age gap between patients in clinical studies and in the general population: a pitfall for dementia research.   Lancet Neurol. 2004;3(10):627-630. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00884-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng97/resources/dementia-assessment-management-and-support-for-people-living-with-dementia-and-their-carers-pdf-1837760199109
8.
Dyer  SM, Laver  K, Pond  CD, Cumming  RG, Whitehead  C, Crotty  M.  Clinical practice guidelines and principles of care for people with dementia in Australia.   Aust Fam Physician. 2016;45(12):884-889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
McKhann  GM, Knopman  DS, Chertkow  H,  et al.  The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease.   Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):263-269. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Sorbi  S, Hort  J, Erkinjuntti  T,  et al; EFNS Scientist Panel on Dementia and Cognitive Neurology.  EFNS-ENS guidelines on the diagnosis and management of disorders associated with dementia.   Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(9):1159-1179. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2012.03784.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Boyle  PA, Yu  L, Leurgans  SE,  et al.  Attributable risk of Alzheimer’s dementia attributed to age-related neuropathologies.   Ann Neurol. 2019;85(1):114-124. doi:10.1002/ana.25380 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Boyle  PA, Yu  L, Wilson  RS, Leurgans  SE, Schneider  JA, Bennett  DA.  Person-specific contribution of neuropathologies to cognitive loss in old age.   Ann Neurol. 2018;83(1):74-83. doi:10.1002/ana.25123 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Prince  M, Wilmo  A, Guerchet  M, Ali  G-C, Wu  Y-T, Prina  M; Global Observatory for Ageing and Dementia Care. World Alzheimer report 2015: the global impact of dementia: an analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://www.alzint.org/resource/world-alzheimer-report-2015
14.
Prince  M, Bryce  R, Albanese  E, Wimo  A, Ribeiro  W, Ferri  CP.  The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9(1):63-75e62. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.11.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Brayne  C, Miller  B.  Dementia and aging populations—a global priority for contextualized research and health policy.   PLoS Med. 2017;14(3):e1002275. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002275 PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.   BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Brigham  TJ.  An introduction to altmetrics.   Med Ref Serv Q. 2014;33(4):438-447. doi:10.1080/02763869.2014.957093 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Sardar  MR, Badri  M, Prince  CT, Seltzer  J, Kowey  PR.  Underrepresentation of women, elderly patients, and racial minorities in the randomized trials used for cardiovascular guidelines.   JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1868-1870. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4758 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Burchard  EG, Ziv  E, Coyle  N,  et al.  The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice.   N Engl J Med. 2003;348(12):1170-1175. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb025007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Townsley  CA, Selby  R, Siu  LL.  Systematic review of barriers to the recruitment of older patients with cancer onto clinical trials.   J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(13):3112-3124. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.00.141 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Heiat  A, Gross  CP, Krumholz  HM.  Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials.   Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(15):1682-1688. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.15.1682 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Qian  J, Wolters  FJ, Beiser  A,  et al.  APOE-related risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia for prevention trials: an analysis of four cohorts.   PLoS Med. 2017;14(3):e1002254. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002254 PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Gianattasio  KZ, Bennett  EE, Wei  J,  et al; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.  Generalizability of findings from a clinical sample to a community-based sample: a comparison of ADNI and ARIC.   Alzheimers Dement. 2021;1-12. doi:10.1002/alz.12293PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Westreich  D, Edwards  JK, Lesko  CR, Stuart  E, Cole  SR.  Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights.   Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(8):1010-1014. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx164 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Wolters  FJ, Ikram  MA.  Epidemiology of vascular dementia.   Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2019;39(8):1542-1549. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.119.311908 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Gauthier  S, Albert  M, Fox  N,  et al.  Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades?   Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(1):60-64. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.12.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Smith  AD, Mangialasche  F, Kivipelto  M.  Dementia research priorities-2.   Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(3):181-182. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30401-X PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Savva  GM, Wharton  SB, Ince  PG, Forster  G, Matthews  FE, Brayne  C; Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study.  Age, neuropathology, and dementia.   N Engl J Med. 2009;360(22):2302-2309. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0806142 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
James  BD, Bennett  DA, Boyle  PA, Leurgans  S, Schneider  JA.  Dementia from Alzheimer disease and mixed pathologies in the oldest old.   JAMA. 2012;307(17):1798-1800. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.3556 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Arboleda-Velasquez  JF, Lopera  F, O’Hare  M,  et al.  Resistance to autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease in an APOE3 Christchurch homozygote: a case report.   Nat Med. 2019;25(11):1680-1683. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0611-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Hedden  T, Oh  H, Younger  AP, Patel  TA.  Meta-analysis of amyloid-cognition relations in cognitively normal older adults.   Neurology. 2013;80(14):1341-1348. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828ab35d PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Lawrence  E, Vegvari  C, Ower  A, Hadjichrysanthou  C, De Wolf  F, Anderson  RM.  A systematic review of longitudinal studies which measure Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers.   J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;59(4):1359-1379. doi:10.3233/JAD-170261 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Prince  M, Ali  GC, Guerchet  M, Prina  AM, Albanese  E, Wu  YT.  Recent global trends in the prevalence and incidence of dementia, and survival with dementia.   Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016;8(1):23. doi:10.1186/s13195-016-0188-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Chin  AL, Negash  S, Hamilton  R.  Diversity and disparity in dementia: the impact of ethnoracial differences in Alzheimer disease.   Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25(3):187-195. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e318211c6c9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Guerchet  M, Mbelesso  P, Ndamba-Bandzouzi  B,  et al; EPIDEMCA group.  Epidemiology of Dementia in Central Africa (EPIDEMCA): protocol for a multicentre population-based study in rural and urban areas of the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo.   Springerplus. 2014;3(1):338. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-338 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Prina  AM, Mayston  R, Wu  Y-T, Prince  M.  A review of the 10/66 Dementia Research Group.   Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019;54(1):1-10. doi:10.1007/s00127-018-1626-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Barnes  LL. Issues of diversity in cognitive aging: a focus on older African Americans. In: Alosco  ML, Stern  RA, eds.  The Oxford Handbook of Adult Cognitive Disorders. Oxford University Press; 2019:852-864.
38.
Ioannidis  JP.  Why most published research findings are false.   PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Review
    September 7, 2021

    Characterizing Demographic, Racial, and Geographic Diversity in Dementia Research: A Systematic Review

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    • 2Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(10):1255-1261. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2943
    Key Points

    Question  To what extent does contemporary dementia research reflect patient characteristics in routine clinical practice?

    Findings  In this systematic review of 302 studies on dementia published in 2018 and 2019, most studies originated from North America or Europe, including a median (interquartile range) of 89% (78-97) White participants. Patients with dementia in clinic-based studies were younger at time of diagnosis than those in population-based studies (mean difference 8.8 years; 95% CI, 7.3-10.2) years younger at time of diagnosis.

    Meaning  Generalizability of contemporary dementia research could benefit from greater racial and geographical diversity, and inclusion of patients within an age range that is more representative of routine practice.

    Abstract

    Importance  For informed decision making on diagnosis and treatment of dementia, physicians and their patients rely on the generalizability of evidence from published studies to clinical practice. However, it is uncertain whether everyday care of elderly patients with dementia is sufficiently captured in contemporary research.

    Objective  To systematically review contemporary dementia research in terms of study and patient characteristics in order to assess generalizability of research findings.

    Evidence Review  PubMed was searched for dementia studies published in the top 100 journals in the fields of neurology and neuroscience, geriatrics, psychiatry, and general medicine between September 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, including setting, number of participants, age at diagnosis, and use of biomarkers.

    Findings  Among 513 identified studies, 211 (41%) included fewer than 50 individuals with dementia and were excluded. The remaining 302 studies included a median (interquartile range) of 214 patients (98-628) with a mean (SD) age at diagnosis of 74.1 years (8.0). Age at diagnosis differed with study setting. Patients in the 180 clinic-based studies had a mean (SD) age of 71.8 (6.4) years at time of diagnosis compared with 80.6 (4.7) years among patients in the 79 population-based studies (mean difference, 8.8 years; 95% CI, 7.3-10.2). Use of magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid imaging was mostly done in clinic-based studies (80% to 96%) and consequently in relatively young patients (mean [SD] age, 71.6 [5.1] years). A longitudinal design was more common in population-based studies than in clinic-based studies (82 % vs 40%). Most studies originated from North America and Europe (89%), including almost exclusively White participants (among 74 studies [22%] reporting on ethnicity: median [interquartile range], 89% [78-97]). The 3 most studied cohorts represented 21% of all included study populations.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Contemporary dementia research is limited in terms of racial and geographic diversity and draws largely from clinic-based populations with relatively young patients. Greater inclusivity and deeper phenotyping in unselected cohorts could improve generalizability as well as diagnosis and development of effective treatments for all patients with dementia.

    Introduction

    Physicians must often translate scientific evidence on diagnosis and care into the best decisions in the consultation room. However, the generalizability of published studies to the clinic largely depends on whether the particular group of patients has been sufficiently studied in clinical research. Lack of generalizability or external validity is a cause for major concern in clinical trials,1 including trials for dementia.2-4 However, in the absence of disease-modifying interventions, most research and clinical decision-making are observational in nature, querying etiology, diagnostic strategies, and prognosis. Lack of generalizability threatens these studies as well as clinical trials when biological underpinning and disease course vary with patient characteristics, as is very common with dementia.5 In 2004, it was suggested that the representativeness of observational dementia research may also be limited,6 but to our knowledge, no published studies have investigated this systematically in a contemporary setting.

    Clinical guidelines for assessment of suspected dementia do not recommend extensive investigation with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), for example, or even brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (instead of computed tomography [CT]) in routine clinical practice.7-10 Although sensible from the viewpoint of efficient and cost-effective care, this could easily lead to research populations that are not representative of the wider population with the disease. It could exclude elderly individuals, who constitute the largest percentage of patients with cognitive decline but often do not attend specialized memory clinics. Unlike in younger patients with dementia, who mostly present with distinct clinical phenotypes, the variety of symptoms that comes with accumulation of various pathologies in old age11,12 influences diagnostic yield and treatment efficacy. Similarly, sex and race or ethnicity differences in biology or presentation, owing to, for instance, variation in genetic makeup and comorbidity, can have an important impact on diagnosis, prognostic risk stratification, and treatment effects. As the prevalence of dementia is expected to increase most in Asia and Africa,13,14 inclusiveness is pivotal, but actual geographic and racial representativeness of study populations are not clearly established.15 We therefore systematically reviewed the contemporary literature to determine the extent to which dementia research is representative of the wider population with dementia and identified patient, study, and disease characteristics that may help refine generalizability.

    Methods
    Search Strategy

    On December 17, 2019, we conducted a systematic search of the literature in PubMed for studies including patients with dementia published in any language between September 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019. We selected all studies published in the top 100 journals, ranked by 2018 impact factor, in the following InCites (Clarivate Analytics) categories: clinical neurology, neurosciences, geriatrics and gerontology, psychiatry, neuroimaging, and general and internal medicine. A list of included journals and the complete search syntax are presented in eAppendix 1 in the Supplement. We included any study including patients with dementia for extraction of study details by 2 reviewers (S.S.M. and F.J.W.). The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.16 This review was not registered, as it did not consider health outcomes on the individual patient level.

    Study Selection

    We imported all retrieved records into an EndNote version X9 (Clarivate Analytics) library. A single reviewer (F.J.W.) screened all articles for eligibility, using the following inclusion criteria: original research articles that included patients with a dementia diagnosis either established at baseline or during follow-up.

    Data Extraction

    Study characteristics were independently extracted from the identified reports by 2 investigators (S.S.M. and F.J.W.), with discrepancies resolved by consensus discussion and adjudicated by a third investigator (S.L.). The extracted information included affiliation of the first author; geographical location of the study’s source population; study setting (eg, clinic based, population based, or nursing home); study design (eg, longitudinal or cross-sectional); study aim (based on the research question); and use of imaging (eg, MRI, positron emission tomography [PET]), genetic, cerebrospinal fluid, or blood biomarkers. We further extracted various patient characteristics for included study participants, namely the number of patients with dementia and their sex, race, and age at diagnosis; in postmortem studies, age of death, sex, and dementia subtype were included. After determining the number of participants with dementia in each study, we proceeded with the extraction of further details in studies with 50 individuals or more with dementia. This number was chosen for reasons of efficiency as well as capturing in more detail studies with typically greater precision. Finally, we looked up corresponding publicity scores (ie, the Altmetric score) of all included articles on November 3, 2020.17 Altmetric scores are quantitative indices that are considered complementary to traditional, citation-based metrics to indicate the amount of attention an article receives based on, for example, public policy documents, mainstream media coverage, and mentions on social networks.

    Statistical Analysis

    When a single publication described multiple study populations (eg, discovery and replication or coordinated analyses across different cohorts), these were pooled for analyses unless relevant distinctions in study setting, design, or aims merited separate analyses. First, we determined the number of participants across studies. We then compared study and patients characteristics between different settings for all studies including 50 or more patients.

    We calculated the mean age at diagnosis of dementia for clinic-based and population-based studies based on summary measures as reported by the individual studies (mean or median age) and compared these between study settings using the t test. As we anticipated that clinic-based studies would more often include patients with dementia subtypes that may occur at a relatively younger age, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, we performed a sensitivity analysis of clinic-based studies without inclusion of dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. For postmortem studies, we extracted age at death, as age at diagnosis was not reported in most studies. Likewise, for patients in nursing homes, the age was reflective of time at inclusion rather than time at diagnosis.

    We compared the distributions of sex and race between study settings. Because average life expectancy in the global population is longer for women than for men, we stratified the sex analyses by the average age. Finally, we log transformed Altmetric scores because of their skewed distribution and subsequently assessed differences by study characteristics using linear regression, adjusted for the time between publication and collection of the scores. Analyses were done using R version 3.6.3 (the R Foundation). A 2-tailed P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

    Results

    Among a total 955 articles, we identified 513 eligible studies of individuals with dementia (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). Most ineligible studies were either preclinical (148) or included dementia-free individuals only (161). Of 513 included studies, 211 (41%) included fewer than 50 individuals. The remaining 302 studies represented 329 distinct study populations (eAppendix 2 in the Supplement), with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 214 (98-628) participants with dementia (Figure 1).

    Among the included studies, most had an observational design (315 of 329; 96%), whereas 14 studies (4%) reported results of clinical trials. Most studies were clinic based (55%) or population based (24%), followed by studies based on postmortem examinations (17%), studies situated in nursing homes (2%), registry-based studies (1%), and a combination of clinic-based and population-based studies (4%). The 3 most investigated (agglomerated) study populations (ie, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, the Religious Orders Study and Memory and Aging Project, and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center) jointly represented 21% of all study populations (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Characteristics of the included studies by study setting are presented in the Table.

    Study Aim and Design

    Of the 329 study populations for which we extracted detailed data, 156 (47%) aimed to unravel dementia etiology and 96 (29%) to improve detection or diagnosis, while only a minority focused on disease management (7%), prognosis (5%), or treatment (5%) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Population-based studies were mainly aimed at unraveling disease etiology, whereas clinic-based studies primarily investigated diagnosis and early detection. In terms of design, the overall numbers of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were nearly identical (161 vs 159), but a longitudinal design was twice as common in population-based cohorts than in clinic-based studies (82% vs 40%) (eTable 3 in the Supplement). This difference between clinic-based studies and population cohorts was independent of differences in study aims (such as detection or diagnosis and etiology).

    Racial and Geographical Diversity

    Most of the included populations originated from either North America (153 of 302; 51%) or Europe (140 of 302; 46%), jointly accounting for 89% of all populations (Figure 2). Other continents were represented as follows: 33 studies (11%) from Asia, 9 studies (3%) from Australia, and 5 studies (2%) from South America; none of the included studies described patients with dementia from Africa. We observed a similar geographical pattern for the affiliation of the lead author of the included articles (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). Accordingly, in 22% of the studies that reported on race, a median (IQR) 89% (78-97) were White (Table).

    Age and Sex Differences Across Study Settings

    The mean (SD) age at diagnosis of dementia across all studies was 74.1 years (8.0). Age at diagnosis differed by study setting. Patients in the 180 clinic-based studies had a mean (SD) age of 71.8 (6.4) years at time of diagnosis compared with 80.6 (4.7) years among patients in the 79 population-based studies (mean difference, 8.8 years; 95% CI, 7.3-10.2) (Figure 3). This difference was broadly unchanged when excluding clinic-based studies of dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (7.7 years; 95% CI 6.2-9.2; P < .001) (eTable 4 in the Supplement) and when excluding studies of early-onset dementia (6.9 years; 95% CI, 5.3-8.5; P < .001). Accordingly, in postmortem studies, mean (SD) age at death was higher in population-based studies than in clinic-based studies (eTable 5 in the Supplement). As expected, patients in nursing homes were oldest (mean [SD] age, 84.8 [4.7] years) (Table). In terms of study design, patients in cross-sectional studies were younger than those in longitudinal studies (3.7 years; 95% CI, 2.0-5.5; P < .001) (eTable 3 in the Supplement).

    A median (IQR) 54% (45-62) of all patients in contemporary dementia research were women, somewhat higher in population-based studies (64% [52-70]) and nursing homes (69% [65-72]) than in clinic-based studies (50% [44-59]) and postmortem studies (53% [44-59]) (Table). This difference in sex distribution seemed at least in part attributable to age differences between the study settings, as clinic-based studies that included patients with a mean age 80 years or older included more women (median, 65%; IQR, 61-68; n = 11) than clinic-based studies of patients aged 75 to 80 years (median, 51%; IQR, 45-61; n = 33), 70 to 75 years (median, 49%; IQR, 44-55; n = 47), or younger than 70 years (median 49%; IQR, 43-54; n = 48).

    Biomarker Use

    Brain imaging was the most commonly applied biomarker for dementia, with 75 of 329 studies (23%) using MRI, and 41 of 329 studies (12%) using PET. Of studies using PET, 16 used fluorodeoxyglucose PET, 27 amyloid PET, and 4 tau PET. CSF was assessed in 48 of 329 studies (15%), genotyping in 65 of 329 studies (20%), and plasma markers in 29 of 329 (9%). Of all studies using imaging or CSF data, 80% to 96% came from clinic-based patient populations (Figure 4; eTable 6 in the Supplement). Consequently, patients that underwent brain imaging or CSF investigation were relatively young at time of diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 71.6 [5.1] years) and included fewer women (49%) in comparison with the overall age and sex distribution from population-based studies.

    Publicity Scores (Altmetric Scores)

    Study sample size was associated with publicity scores, with more media attention for the larger studies compared with the smaller studies (with 250 participants as the cutoff; difference in log-transformed scores [β], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.16-0.76; P = .003) (eTable 7 in the Supplement). Publicity scores also differed by study setting: population-based studies received more attention than clinic-based studies (β, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.35-1.06; P < .001), whereas studies based in nursing homes received less publicity compared with clinic-based studies (β, −1.57; 95% CI, −2.65 to −0.49; P = .004).

    Discussion

    In this comprehensive evaluation of contemporary research on patients with dementia published in leading journals in clinical medicine from September 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019, we observed poor representativeness of the wider patient population with dementia. Only 1 in 5 studies reported on participants’ race, including almost exclusively White participants residing in North America and Europe. Age at diagnosis of dementia was on average 8.8 years lower in clinic-based studies compared with population-based studies, and phenotyping by means of MRI, PET, and CSF was therefore mostly limited to relatively young patients.

    While internal validity (ie, minimizing bias) is crucial to acquiring truthful findings, the usefulness of the clinical research findings in many studies is threatened if the results cannot reasonably be applied to the broader group of patients in routine practice.1 A lack of racial and geographic diversity and underrepresentation of older persons has been described in other medical research fields, such as cancer and cardiovascular medicine, in particular regarding participant inclusion in clinical trials.18-21 In this review, observational studies comprised 96% of the included studies. Our findings imply that nonrepresentativeness of patients hampers the external validity of much of contemporary observational dementia research, as has previously been suggested with respect to clinical trials.2,4,6 This has important implications for the applicability of results by clinicians outside specialized referral centers, which often diagnose, treat, and monitor substantially different patient populations. Generally speaking, generalizability will be affected by any factor that substantially affects outcome, including study setting, patient selection and characteristics, and outcome measures. For example, absolute risk estimates from prediction models and the diagnostic value of specific tests often translate poorly to populations with very different background risk. While relative risk estimates may be more stable across populations than absolute risks,22 substantial discrepancies in relative risk between clinic-based populations and unselected populations have recently been reported.23 Statistical methods, such as inverse probability weighting, may alleviate concerns to some extent, provided sufficient information about the source population.24

    In this review of dementia research, older patients were underrepresented. Younger patients often present with distinct clinical phenotypes, owing to the predominance of a single type of brain pathology, be it hallmarks of Alzheimer disease, vascular brain injury, alpha-synuclein, or prions. By contrast, in the average 80-year-old brain, multiple types of pathology have accumulated and jointly contribute to a dementia phenotype with a conglomerate of symptoms that precludes a single etiological diagnosis.12,25 The median age at diagnosis of dementia in the population is older than 80 years, and mixed pathology is therefore present in most elderly patients with dementia.26-29 While the study of highly selected younger individuals can be useful to our understanding of specific mechanisms,30 it also carries certain pitfalls. For example, hippocampal atrophy is a specific sign of Alzheimer disease in younger patients but is much more common in elderly individuals, even in the absence of cognitive impairment.28 Similarly, amyloid pathology is increasingly common in elderly individuals, in whom it often does not correlate with cognitive performance.31 We observed that biomarkers and diagnostic tools, such as PET imaging, CSF sampling, and even brain MRI, were sparsely used in studies of older participants with dementia. Therefore, conclusions based on studies of younger patients, in particular relating to diagnosis and prognosis, may not be readily translatable into best practice for most older dementia patients. Indeed, it was recently found that findings from a clinic-based sample often do not align with results from the same study among a more representative population.23 Broader inclusiveness of clinic-based studies and more in-depth study of biomarkers in unselected populations may help to ensure generalizability to patient populations beyond specialized referral centers.32

    Over the coming decades, dementia prevalence is expected to increase most in low- and middle-income countries such that by 2050, 68% of all patients with dementia will be living in low- and middle-income countries, mainly Africa, Asia, and South America.13,14 Yet 9 of 10 studies in this review primarily included patients from North America or Europe, including on average 89% White individuals (in the 22% of studies that reported on race and ethnicity). The projected increases in dementia prevalence are largely owing to shifts in demography and an increasing prevalence of dementia risk factors.33 In many instances, however, it remains unknown if risk factors are associated with similar increases in risk across populations with various genetic makeup. Whether the genetic predisposition for dementia differs by race also remains unclear.34,35 Other differences that warrant cross-cultural dementia research relate to awareness, recognition (including stigmatization), and (available means for) diagnosis and disease management.34,36 It should be noted that only 1 in 5 studies reported on race. The racial diversity in other studies was likely similar, given their geographical location and overlap in population with studies that did report these distributions. Standardized reporting of race and ethnicity of study participants may promote inclusiveness in future studies, for example by implementing this information in internationally recognized guidelines for reporting studies. This applies to studies of dementia as well as cognitive aging in the prediagnostic phase.37

    Limitations

    The veracity of any research finding depends on validity (ie, the absence of bias) and precision (ie, power). Our observation that over 40% of studies included fewer than 50 patients with dementia triggers caution about the precision of findings in much of contemporary evidence. Insufficient sample sizes are associated with a reduced chance of detecting true effects as well as a lower likelihood that statistically significant results in fact reflect a true effect.38 In addition, underpowered studies prompt publication bias owing to selective reporting of statistically significant results. Although smaller studies can provide valuable insight—for instance, in case of a qualitative design—and various smaller studies included in this review undoubtedly have made important contributions to the literature, adequately powered studies are pivotal to avoid spurious findings.

    Although we believe our results accurately reflect the most informative contemporary dementia research, certain limitations should be considered when interpreting our results. First, detailed characteristics of studies with smaller sample sizes (fewer than 50 participants with dementia) were not extracted. Based on our observations among the studies with 50 or more participants, it can be expected that smaller studies were mostly clinic-based studies among relatively younger patients. Second, restricting our search to the more renowned medical journals may have biased our results to the inclusion of research from institutions with a longer tradition of publishing in medical journals in the English language, thereby underestimating the overall contribution to dementia research from South America, Africa, or Asia. Nevertheless, our findings are in line with previously noted underrepresentation of low- and middle-income countries in population-based research,36 extending this to other settings as well. Third, not all articles reported data on race, sex, and age at diagnosis, calling for more consistent reporting of important population characteristics, for example by using international reporting guidelines. Fourth, age at diagnosis compared with the general population in the included reports may be underestimated by earlier diagnosis owing to either sensitive diagnostic tools in specialized memory clinics or routinely applied cognitive screening in population-based studies, but this is unlikely to have affected the difference between study settings.

    Conclusions

    External validity of contemporary dementia research is hampered by lack of racial and geographic diversity. Elderly patients are particularly underrepresented in clinic-based studies, notably with regard to the development and application of biomarkers. Increasing inclusiveness and in-depth study of biomarkers in well-defined, unselected populations ensures transportability to patient populations beyond specialized referral centers.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: June 23, 2021.

    Published Online: September 7, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2943

    Corresponding Author: Frank J. Wolters, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (f.j.wolters@erasmusmc.nl).

    Author Contributions: Dr Wolters had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Wolters.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Mooldijk.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Licher, Wolters.

    Statistical analysis: Mooldijk.

    Supervision: Licher, Wolters.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    Additional Contributions: We thank Reffat A. Segufa, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, for her valuable contribution to the literature search and M. Kamran Ikram, MD, PhD, Erasmus Medical Center, for his thoughtful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. These individuals received no compensation, financial or otherwise, for their contributions.

    References
    1.
    Rothwell  PM.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”   Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82-93. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Canevelli  M, Trebbastoni  A, Quarata  F,  et al.  External validity of randomized controlled trials on Alzheimer’s disease: the biases of frailty and biological aging.   Front Neurol. 2017;8:628. doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00628 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Leinonen  A, Koponen  M, Hartikainen  S.  Systematic review: representativeness of participants in RCTs of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.   PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0124500. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124500 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    4.
    Banzi  R, Camaioni  P, Tettamanti  M, Bertele’  V, Lucca  U.  Older patients are still under-represented in clinical trials of Alzheimer’s disease.   Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016;8:32. doi:10.1186/s13195-016-0201-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Brayne  C, Davis  D.  Making Alzheimer’s and dementia research fit for populations.   Lancet. 2012;380(9851):1441-1443. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61803-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Schoenmaker  N, Van Gool  WA.  The age gap between patients in clinical studies and in the general population: a pitfall for dementia research.   Lancet Neurol. 2004;3(10):627-630. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00884-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng97/resources/dementia-assessment-management-and-support-for-people-living-with-dementia-and-their-carers-pdf-1837760199109
    8.
    Dyer  SM, Laver  K, Pond  CD, Cumming  RG, Whitehead  C, Crotty  M.  Clinical practice guidelines and principles of care for people with dementia in Australia.   Aust Fam Physician. 2016;45(12):884-889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    9.
    McKhann  GM, Knopman  DS, Chertkow  H,  et al.  The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease.   Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):263-269. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Sorbi  S, Hort  J, Erkinjuntti  T,  et al; EFNS Scientist Panel on Dementia and Cognitive Neurology.  EFNS-ENS guidelines on the diagnosis and management of disorders associated with dementia.   Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(9):1159-1179. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2012.03784.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Boyle  PA, Yu  L, Leurgans  SE,  et al.  Attributable risk of Alzheimer’s dementia attributed to age-related neuropathologies.   Ann Neurol. 2019;85(1):114-124. doi:10.1002/ana.25380 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Boyle  PA, Yu  L, Wilson  RS, Leurgans  SE, Schneider  JA, Bennett  DA.  Person-specific contribution of neuropathologies to cognitive loss in old age.   Ann Neurol. 2018;83(1):74-83. doi:10.1002/ana.25123 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Prince  M, Wilmo  A, Guerchet  M, Ali  G-C, Wu  Y-T, Prina  M; Global Observatory for Ageing and Dementia Care. World Alzheimer report 2015: the global impact of dementia: an analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://www.alzint.org/resource/world-alzheimer-report-2015
    14.
    Prince  M, Bryce  R, Albanese  E, Wimo  A, Ribeiro  W, Ferri  CP.  The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9(1):63-75e62. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2012.11.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Brayne  C, Miller  B.  Dementia and aging populations—a global priority for contextualized research and health policy.   PLoS Med. 2017;14(3):e1002275. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002275 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    16.
    Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.   BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Brigham  TJ.  An introduction to altmetrics.   Med Ref Serv Q. 2014;33(4):438-447. doi:10.1080/02763869.2014.957093 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Sardar  MR, Badri  M, Prince  CT, Seltzer  J, Kowey  PR.  Underrepresentation of women, elderly patients, and racial minorities in the randomized trials used for cardiovascular guidelines.   JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1868-1870. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4758 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Burchard  EG, Ziv  E, Coyle  N,  et al.  The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice.   N Engl J Med. 2003;348(12):1170-1175. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb025007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Townsley  CA, Selby  R, Siu  LL.  Systematic review of barriers to the recruitment of older patients with cancer onto clinical trials.   J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(13):3112-3124. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.00.141 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Heiat  A, Gross  CP, Krumholz  HM.  Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials.   Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(15):1682-1688. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.15.1682 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Qian  J, Wolters  FJ, Beiser  A,  et al.  APOE-related risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia for prevention trials: an analysis of four cohorts.   PLoS Med. 2017;14(3):e1002254. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002254 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    23.
    Gianattasio  KZ, Bennett  EE, Wei  J,  et al; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.  Generalizability of findings from a clinical sample to a community-based sample: a comparison of ADNI and ARIC.   Alzheimers Dement. 2021;1-12. doi:10.1002/alz.12293PubMedGoogle Scholar
    24.
    Westreich  D, Edwards  JK, Lesko  CR, Stuart  E, Cole  SR.  Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights.   Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(8):1010-1014. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx164 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Wolters  FJ, Ikram  MA.  Epidemiology of vascular dementia.   Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2019;39(8):1542-1549. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.119.311908 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Gauthier  S, Albert  M, Fox  N,  et al.  Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades?   Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(1):60-64. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.12.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Smith  AD, Mangialasche  F, Kivipelto  M.  Dementia research priorities-2.   Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(3):181-182. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30401-X PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Savva  GM, Wharton  SB, Ince  PG, Forster  G, Matthews  FE, Brayne  C; Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study.  Age, neuropathology, and dementia.   N Engl J Med. 2009;360(22):2302-2309. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0806142 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    James  BD, Bennett  DA, Boyle  PA, Leurgans  S, Schneider  JA.  Dementia from Alzheimer disease and mixed pathologies in the oldest old.   JAMA. 2012;307(17):1798-1800. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.3556 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Arboleda-Velasquez  JF, Lopera  F, O’Hare  M,  et al.  Resistance to autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease in an APOE3 Christchurch homozygote: a case report.   Nat Med. 2019;25(11):1680-1683. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0611-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Hedden  T, Oh  H, Younger  AP, Patel  TA.  Meta-analysis of amyloid-cognition relations in cognitively normal older adults.   Neurology. 2013;80(14):1341-1348. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828ab35d PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Lawrence  E, Vegvari  C, Ower  A, Hadjichrysanthou  C, De Wolf  F, Anderson  RM.  A systematic review of longitudinal studies which measure Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers.   J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;59(4):1359-1379. doi:10.3233/JAD-170261 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Prince  M, Ali  GC, Guerchet  M, Prina  AM, Albanese  E, Wu  YT.  Recent global trends in the prevalence and incidence of dementia, and survival with dementia.   Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016;8(1):23. doi:10.1186/s13195-016-0188-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Chin  AL, Negash  S, Hamilton  R.  Diversity and disparity in dementia: the impact of ethnoracial differences in Alzheimer disease.   Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25(3):187-195. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e318211c6c9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Guerchet  M, Mbelesso  P, Ndamba-Bandzouzi  B,  et al; EPIDEMCA group.  Epidemiology of Dementia in Central Africa (EPIDEMCA): protocol for a multicentre population-based study in rural and urban areas of the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo.   Springerplus. 2014;3(1):338. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-338 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Prina  AM, Mayston  R, Wu  Y-T, Prince  M.  A review of the 10/66 Dementia Research Group.   Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019;54(1):1-10. doi:10.1007/s00127-018-1626-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Barnes  LL. Issues of diversity in cognitive aging: a focus on older African Americans. In: Alosco  ML, Stern  RA, eds.  The Oxford Handbook of Adult Cognitive Disorders. Oxford University Press; 2019:852-864.
    38.
    Ioannidis  JP.  Why most published research findings are false.   PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    ×