Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2019 Jun 4;11(1):52.
doi: 10.1186/s13195-019-0495-y.

Avoiding methodological bias in studies of amyloid imaging results disclosure

Carl Taswell  1   2 , Cheryl Donohue  3 , Maree T Mastwyk  3 , Andrea G Louey  3 , Jacqueline Giummarra  3 , Joanne Robertson  3 , David G Darby  3 , Colin L Masters  3 , Christopher C Rowe  3   4
Affiliations
Comment

Avoiding methodological bias in studies of amyloid imaging results disclosure

Carl Taswell et al. Alzheimers Res Ther. .
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Comment in

Comment on

References

    1. Grill JD et al. Reactions to learning a “not elevated” amyloid PET result in a preclinical Alzheimer’s disease trial. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018;10. doı: 10.1186/s13195-018-0452-1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wake T, et al. The psychological impact of disclosing amyloid status to Japanese elderly: a preliminary study on asymptomatic patients with subjective cognitive decline. Int Psychogeriatr. 2018;30:635–639. doi: 10.1017/s1041610217002204. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taswell C, et al. Safety of disclosing amyloid imaging results to MCI and AD patients. Ment Health Fam Med. 2018;14:748–56. http://mhfmjournal.com/pdf/MHFM-120.pdf.
    1. Range LM, Knott EC. Twenty suicide assessment instruments: evaluation and recommendations. Death Stud. 1997;21:25–58. doi: 10.1080/074811897202128. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Erford BT, et al. Selecting suicide ideation assessment instruments: a meta-analytic review. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2017;51:42–59. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2017.1358062. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources