Henry Brodaty1, Annu Mothakunnel2, Melissa de Vel-Palumbo2, David Ames3, Kathryn A Ellis4, Simone Reppermund2, Nicole A Kochan5, Greg Savage6, Julian N Trollor7, John Crawford2, Perminder S Sachdev5. 1. Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Dementia Collaborative Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: h.brodaty@unsw.edu.au. 2. Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. National Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne Academic Unit for the Psychiatry of Old Age, Kew, VIC, Australia. 4. National Ageing Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne Academic Unit for the Psychiatry of Old Age, Kew, VIC, Australia; Mental Health Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 5. Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Neuropsychiatric Institute, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia. 6. Department of Psychology and ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 7. Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Department of Developmental Disability Neuropsychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined whether differences in findings of studies examining mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were associated with recruitment methods by comparing sample characteristics in two contemporaneous Australian studies, using population-based and convenience sampling. METHOD: The Sydney Memory and Aging Study invited participants randomly from the electoral roll in defined geographic areas in Sydney. The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Ageing recruited cognitively normal (CN) individuals via media appeals and MCI participants via referrals from clinicians in Melbourne and Perth. Demographic and cognitive variables were harmonized, and similar diagnostic criteria were applied to both samples retrospectively. RESULTS: CN participants recruited via convenience sampling were younger, better educated, more likely to be married and have a family history of dementia, and performed better cognitively than those recruited via population-based sampling. MCI participants recruited via population-based sampling had better memory performance and were less likely to carry the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele than clinically referred participants but did not differ on other demographic variables. CONCLUSION: A convenience sample of normal controls is likely to be younger and better functioning and that of an MCI group likely to perform worse than a purportedly random sample. Sampling bias should be considered when interpreting findings.
PURPOSE: We examined whether differences in findings of studies examining mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were associated with recruitment methods by comparing sample characteristics in two contemporaneous Australian studies, using population-based and convenience sampling. METHOD: The Sydney Memory and Aging Study invited participants randomly from the electoral roll in defined geographic areas in Sydney. The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Ageing recruited cognitively normal (CN) individuals via media appeals and MCI participants via referrals from clinicians in Melbourne and Perth. Demographic and cognitive variables were harmonized, and similar diagnostic criteria were applied to both samples retrospectively. RESULTS: CN participants recruited via convenience sampling were younger, better educated, more likely to be married and have a family history of dementia, and performed better cognitively than those recruited via population-based sampling. MCI participants recruited via population-based sampling had better memory performance and were less likely to carry the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele than clinically referred participants but did not differ on other demographic variables. CONCLUSION: A convenience sample of normal controls is likely to be younger and better functioning and that of an MCI group likely to perform worse than a purportedly random sample. Sampling bias should be considered when interpreting findings.
Authors: Willemijn J Jansen; Rik Ossenkoppele; Dirk L Knol; Betty M Tijms; Philip Scheltens; Frans R J Verhey; Pieter Jelle Visser; Pauline Aalten; Dag Aarsland; Daniel Alcolea; Myriam Alexander; Ina S Almdahl; Steven E Arnold; Inês Baldeiras; Henryk Barthel; Bart N M van Berckel; Kristen Bibeau; Kaj Blennow; David J Brooks; Mark A van Buchem; Vincent Camus; Enrica Cavedo; Kewei Chen; Gael Chetelat; Ann D Cohen; Alexander Drzezga; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Anne M Fagan; Tormod Fladby; Adam S Fleisher; Wiesje M van der Flier; Lisa Ford; Stefan Förster; Juan Fortea; Nadia Foskett; Kristian S Frederiksen; Yvonne Freund-Levi; Giovanni B Frisoni; Lutz Froelich; Tomasz Gabryelewicz; Kiran Dip Gill; Olymbia Gkatzima; Estrella Gómez-Tortosa; Mark Forrest Gordon; Timo Grimmer; Harald Hampel; Lucrezia Hausner; Sabine Hellwig; Sanna-Kaisa Herukka; Helmut Hildebrandt; Lianna Ishihara; Adrian Ivanoiu; William J Jagust; Peter Johannsen; Ramesh Kandimalla; Elisabeth Kapaki; Aleksandra Klimkowicz-Mrowiec; William E Klunk; Sebastian Köhler; Norman Koglin; Johannes Kornhuber; Milica G Kramberger; Koen Van Laere; Susan M Landau; Dong Young Lee; Mony de Leon; Viviana Lisetti; Alberto Lleó; Karine Madsen; Wolfgang Maier; Jan Marcusson; Niklas Mattsson; Alexandre de Mendonça; Olga Meulenbroek; Philipp T Meyer; Mark A Mintun; Vincent Mok; José Luis Molinuevo; Hanne M Møllergård; John C Morris; Barbara Mroczko; Stefan Van der Mussele; Duk L Na; Andrew Newberg; Agneta Nordberg; Arto Nordlund; Gerald P Novak; George P Paraskevas; Lucilla Parnetti; Gayan Perera; Oliver Peters; Julius Popp; Sudesh Prabhakar; Gil D Rabinovici; Inez H G B Ramakers; Lorena Rami; Catarina Resende de Oliveira; Juha O Rinne; Karen M Rodrigue; Eloy Rodríguez-Rodríguez; Catherine M Roe; Uros Rot; Christopher C Rowe; Eckart Rüther; Osama Sabri; Páscual Sanchez-Juan; Isabel Santana; Marie Sarazin; Johannes Schröder; Christin Schütte; Sang W Seo; Femke Soetewey; Hilkka Soininen; Luiza Spiru; Hanne Struyfs; Charlotte E Teunissen; Magda Tsolaki; Rik Vandenberghe; Marcel M Verbeek; Victor L Villemagne; Stephanie J B Vos; Linda J C van Waalwijk van Doorn; Gunhild Waldemar; Anders Wallin; Åsa K Wallin; Jens Wiltfang; David A Wolk; Marzena Zboch; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher A Lane; Thomas D Parker; Dave M Cash; Kirsty Macpherson; Elizabeth Donnachie; Heidi Murray-Smith; Anna Barnes; Suzie Barker; Daniel G Beasley; Jose Bras; David Brown; Ninon Burgos; Michelle Byford; M Jorge Cardoso; Ana Carvalho; Jessica Collins; Enrico De Vita; John C Dickson; Norah Epie; Miklos Espak; Susie M D Henley; Chandrashekar Hoskote; Michael Hutel; Jana Klimova; Ian B Malone; Pawel Markiewicz; Andrew Melbourne; Marc Modat; Anette Schrag; Sachit Shah; Nikhil Sharma; Carole H Sudre; David L Thomas; Andrew Wong; Hui Zhang; John Hardy; Henrik Zetterberg; Sebastien Ourselin; Sebastian J Crutch; Diana Kuh; Marcus Richards; Nick C Fox; Jonathan M Schott Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Thomas D Parker; David M Cash; Christopher A Lane; Kirsty Lu; Ian B Malone; Jennifer M Nicholas; Sarah-Naomi James; Ashvini Keshavan; Heidi Murray-Smith; Andrew Wong; Sarah M Buchanan; Sarah E Keuss; Carole H Sudre; David L Thomas; Sebastian J Crutch; Nick C Fox; Marcus Richards; Jonathan M Schott Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2020-04-17
Authors: Henry Brodaty; Claudia Woolf; Stacy Andersen; Nir Barzilai; Carol Brayne; Karen Siu-Lan Cheung; Maria M Corrada; John D Crawford; Catriona Daly; Yasuyuki Gondo; Bo Hagberg; Nobuyoshi Hirose; Henne Holstege; Claudia Kawas; Jeffrey Kaye; Nicole A Kochan; Bobo Hi-Po Lau; Ugo Lucca; Gabriella Marcon; Peter Martin; Leonard W Poon; Robyn Richmond; Jean-Marie Robine; Ingmar Skoog; Melissa J Slavin; Jan Szewieczek; Mauro Tettamanti; José Viña; Thomas Perls; Perminder S Sachdev Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.474