In internal medicine German authors tend to publish randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with non-significant findings in German journals, RCTs with significant findings in international journals. In the neurosciences a similar trend was seen but the findings were not statistically significant. The reason for this inconclusive finding might be the low number of RCTs published in German.

Longitudinal administration of neuropsychological instruments are often used to assess age-related changes in cognition. Informative loss to follow-up may bias the results of these studies. Herein, we use auxiliary data to adjust for informative loss to follow-up. In the Einstein Aging Study, memory was assessed annually in a community sample of adults age 70+, free of dementia at baseline, using the free recall from the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, and via telephone using the Memory Impairment Screen for Telephone (the auxiliary data). Joint linear mixed models were used to assess how the effect of the APOE ε4 genotype may be affected by informative missingness in the in-person data. A total of 620 EAS participants contributed 2085 person years of follow-up to the analyses. Memory decline rates estimated in joint models were 19% greater in ε4 negative participants and 27% greater in ε4 positive participants compared to traditional approaches; the effect of APOE ε4 on memory decline was 37% greater. Joint modeling methods can help address bias caused by informative missing data in the estimation of the effect of risk factors on cognitive change, and may be applicable to a broader range of outcomes in longitudinal aging studies. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–6)

The effect of race on cognitive test performance in the evaluation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains controversial. One factor that may contribute substantially to differences in cognitive test performance in diverse populations is education. The current study examined the extent to which quality of education, even after controlling for formal years of education, accounts for differences in cognitive performance between African Americans and White Non-Hispanics (WNHs). The retrospective cohort included 244 patients diagnosed with AD who self-identified as African Americans (n = 51) or WNHs (n = 193). The Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR) was used as an estimate of quality of education. In an analysis that controlled for traditional demographics, including age, sex, and years of formal education, African Americans scored significantly lower than WNHs on the Mini-Mental State Examination, as well as on neuropsychological tests of memory, attention, and language. However, after also adjusting for reading level, all previously observed differences were significantly attenuated. The attenuating effect remained even after controlling for disease severity, indicating that reading scores are not confounded by severity of dementia. These findings suggest that quality, and not just quantity, of education needs to be taken into account when assessing cognitive performance in African Americans with AD. (JINS, 2012, 18, 277–285)

Objectives: A recent study showed that estimates of cost-effectiveness submitted to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) by manufacturers had significantly lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) than those submitted by university-based Assessment Groups. This study extends that analysis.

Methods: Data were abstracted from relevant NICE documentation for thirty-two of eighty-two possible appraisals.

Results: The results from the analysis showed that sources of the difference in ICERs appear to be the effectiveness estimates relating to the comparator technology and the cost estimates relating to the technology under evaluation. That is, manufacturers estimated lower average benefits for the comparator technology and lower costs relating to the technology under evaluation compared with estimates submitted by the Assessment Groups.

Conclusions: These findings may be particularly important, given the introduction of the “Single Technology Appraisal.” Considerable difficulties were encountered when undertaking this study, highlighting, above all else, the complexity of explaining why results from economic evaluations purporting to answer the same question diverge.