ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
How can physicians empathetically deliver a diagnosis that reflects the evolving landscape of Alzheimer's disease care: A scoping review.
Review in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Communicating an Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis requires physicians to navigate not only complex symptoms but also profound psychosocial challenges influencing family dynamics and long-term neuropsychiatric care planning. The research landscape of AD has undergone a rapid transformation, marked by disease-modifying therapies such as lecanemab and donanemab. This study examines physician practices in AD diagnostic disclosure, clinician training for these conversations, and adaptations to emerging disease-modifying therapies. A structured scoping review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The review focused on three themes: (1) best practices in diagnostic disclosure, (2) barriers to effective communication, and (3) physician training. A survey of neurologists and psychiatrists at the Renaissance School of Medicine is underway to assess their perspectives on discussing disease-modifying therapies with patients. The database search identified 337 records; after duplicates were removed, 245 were screened, 66 full texts assessed, and 23 studies included. Physicians emphasized the importance of helping patients maintain a sense of control, offering practical advice, and connecting patients to health and social intervention services. Physicians reported low confidence in conveying uncertainty, describing tension between honesty about limitations and preserving hope. With few formal opportunities, physicians rely on peers or supplemental resources to refine communication strategies. The scoping review found few studies on novel therapies' impact on diagnostic conversations and no formal guiding frameworks. This gap highlights the need to investigate physicians' approaches to discussing disease-modifying therapies for AD, which forms the basis of ongoing research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.