Every finding in the evidence table: 382 rows, filterable

Every row

Filter

Area All 382 Care, carers and services 140 Medicines 85 Genes (not modifiable) 35 All modifiable factors together 27 Diet and supplements 23 Exercise and activity 21 Sleep, mood and social life 19 Hearing and vision 8 Alcohol, tobacco and cannabis 6 Infection and vaccination 5 Heart and metabolic health 4 Injury, delirium and falls 4 Environment 3 Cognitive activity 2

Question Both Prevention 190 Treatment 192

Direction Any Benefit 144 Harm 105 No effect 38 Mixed 37 No direction reported 58

Design Any meta-analysis 57 randomised trial 44 phase 3 trial 15 systematic review 9 phase 2 trial 10 cohort study 136 phase 1 trial 2 cross-sectional study 31 case-control study 14 modelling study 20 regulatory decision 7 company announcement 1 coverage determination 1 None 35

Showing 13 of 382 rows. One row per study per exposure: a study that tested two different things appears twice, once for each.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column.

Research and outcomes, 13 rows. Every row links to its source.
Exposure	Question	Direction	Outcome measured	Design	People	Effect size, as the source reported it	Source
Amyloid PET Centiloid positivity threshold Care, carers and services	Treatment	No direction reported why A threshold-derivation meta-analysis: it converges on 18 Centiloids (data-driven) and 27 Centiloids (visual reads) and flags 11-26 as a range to read with caution. It compares no exposure, so no direction exists to record.	Centiloid cutoff for amyloid PET positivity (data-driven and by visual-read correspondence)	meta-analysis	49,227	The data-driven GMM approach identified a bimodal distribution in 51 studies (n = 48 786), resulting in a single cutoff for positivity of 18 Centiloids (95% CI,16-19; I2 = 97%). The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%) ... Centiloids were highly predictive of visual positivity (Cohen κ, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89; I2 = 96%) with a cutoff of 27 Centiloids (95% CI, 24-30; I2 = 80%)	JAMA 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 42441390
Blood biomarker test (p-tau217 / amyloid ratio) Care, carers and services	Treatment	Benefit why Direction is for the test's accuracy against the reference standard; an accuracy result, not a health outcome. Plasma p-tau217 detected amyloid PET positivity with 82% sensitivity and 86% specificity, comparable to CSF p-tau217; less sensitive for tau PET.	Sensitivity and specificity for amyloid and tau PET positivity (pooled)	meta-analysis	not stated	Plasma p-tau217 showed 82% sensitivity for detecting amyloid and 83% for tau, with 86% and 83% specificity, respectively. CSF p-tau217 had 79% sensitivity for amyloid and 91% for tau, with 91% and 84% specificity	Alzheimer's & Dementia 2025 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 39711334
Blood biomarker test (p-tau217 / amyloid ratio) Care, carers and services	Treatment	Benefit why Direction is for the test's accuracy against the reference standard; an accuracy result, not a health outcome. Plasma p-tau217 was the best-performing marker (88.1% sensitivity, 88.7% specificity, AUROC 91.1%, moderate certainty), ahead of p-tau181 and p-tau231; about 90% of studies were at high risk of bias.	Pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC for biologically defined Alzheimer's disease	meta-analysis	29,625	Plasma p-tau217 was the highest-performing biomarker for identifying biologically defined Alzheimer's disease, with pooled sensitivity of 88·1% (95% CI 86·7-89·5, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity of 88·7% (87·4-89·9, moderate certainty of evidence), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 91·1% (88·9-92·4, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio of 50·7 (40·6-63·4). p-tau181 pooled sensitivity was 80·5% (78·4-82·4, low certainty of evidence), specificity was 76·4% (74·1-78·6, low certainty of evidence), AUROC was 81·5% (80·2-82·9, low certainty of evidence)	The Lancet Neurology 2025 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 40818474
Blood biomarker test (p-tau217 / amyloid ratio) Care, carers and services	Treatment	Mixed why Direction is for the test's accuracy against the reference standard; an accuracy result, not a health outcome. Performance varied widely across tests, from 49.3% to 91.4% pooled sensitivity and 61.5% to 96.7% pooled specificity at a single cut-point, with most studies at high risk of bias.	Pooled sensitivity and specificity of 31 blood-based biomarker tests for Alzheimer pathology in cognitively impaired people	meta-analysis	not stated	the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2-57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6-94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6-75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8-99.2)	Alzheimer's & Dementia 2025 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 41193403
Caregiving itself (exposure to the carer) Care, carers and services	Treatment	No direction reported why A pooled prevalence among carers (50.8% lonely, 37.1% socially isolated) with no non-carer comparison, so no direction for the effect of caregiving can be recorded.	Prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers	meta-analysis	11,134	The pooled prevalence of loneliness among informal carers of individuals with dementia was 50.8% (95% CI: 41.8%-59.8%), while the pooled prevalence of social isolation was 37.1% (95% CI: 26.7%-47.6%)	International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2024 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 38752797
Caregiving itself (exposure to the carer) Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for BEING a carer: carers were worse off than non-carers on every domain, with the largest gaps in depression and stress.	Carer depression, stress, well-being and physical health	meta-analysis	not stated	Depression g=0.58; stress g=0.55; self-efficacy g=-0.54; well-being g=-0.40; physical health g=0.18	Psychology and Aging 2003 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 12825775
Carer psychosocial / skills intervention Care, carers and services	Treatment	Benefit why Benefit was larger for younger, male and non-spousal carers. The largest single effect (training the person with dementia) rests on 10 observations and the authors call it promising rather than definitive.	Carer anxiety and depression	meta-analysis	not stated	"Interventions generally showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression with varied effects on SWB [subjective well-being]" across 175 studies and 342 intervention treatments	Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 40550226
Carer psychosocial / skills intervention Care, carers and services	Treatment	Benefit why Digital psychological interventions reduced caregiver burden and improved self-efficacy and quality of life; the effect on depressive symptoms was not statistically significant (P = .06).	Caregiver burden (primary); depression, self-efficacy and quality of life	meta-analysis	750	digital psychological interventions significantly reduced caregiver burden [Standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.35 to -0.07; P = .003] and improved self-efficacy (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.61, P = .001) and quality of life (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.91, P < .001). But digital psychological interventions have no statistically significant in alleviating depressive symptoms (P = .06)	Age and ageing 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 41505195
Carer psychosocial / skills intervention Care, carers and services	Treatment	Mixed why Peer support reduced distress to behavioural symptoms and increased social support and quality of life immediately after the intervention, but had no effect on depression/anxiety, loneliness, burden or competence, and no outcome was sustained at follow-up.	Caregiver distress, social support, health-related quality of life, depression/anxiety, loneliness, burden and competence after peer support	meta-analysis	1,680	Peer support interventions significantly reduced caregiver distress to behavioral symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.55 to -0.02; p = 0.03), increased social support (SMD, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.67; p = 0.02), and HRQoL (SMD, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.46; p = 0.03) postintervention. However, no significant effects were observed on depression/anxiety, loneliness, caregiving burden, and caregiving competence/knowledge postintervention. None of the outcomes showed sustained effects at follow up	Archives of gerontology and geriatrics 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 41690252
Cognitive screening instrument accuracy Care, carers and services	Treatment	Benefit why Direction is for the test's accuracy against the reference standard; an accuracy result, not a health outcome. Pooled sensitivity 76% and specificity 83% for dementia, with 73% / 84% in primary care; the authors call it a practical screening tool while noting high or unclear risk of bias in patient selection and timing.	Pooled sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Cog for dementia, MCI and cognitive impairment	meta-analysis	not stated	To detect dementia (six studies, n = 4772), the Mini-Cog showed 76% sensitivity and 83% specificity. To detect MCI (two studies, n = 270), it showed 84% sensitivity and 79% specificity. To detect CI (eight studies, n = 2152), it had 67% sensitivity and 83% specificity. In the primary care setting, to detect either MCI, dementia, or CI (eight studies, n = 5620), the Mini-Cog demonstrated 73% sensitivity and 84% specificity	PLOS ONE 2024 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 38483857
Palliative / advance care planning Care, carers and services	Treatment	Mixed why Advance care planning strongly increased DNR documentation (OR 14.12) but did not change whether residents died in the nursing home (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.66). Evidence on other end-of-life outcomes was limited and inconsistent, and no study came from a non-Western setting.	Do-not-resuscitate documentation; place of death	meta-analysis	not stated	DNR documentation OR 14.12 (95% CI 3.95-50.47); nursing home death OR 1.62 (95% CI 0.72-3.66, not significant)	Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 41198038
Prognosis after dementia diagnosis (survival, nursing home admission) Care, carers and services	Treatment	No direction reported why A prognosis meta-analysis: it pools time to death and to nursing home admission and compares no exposure. Women's shorter survival was attributable to later age at diagnosis.	Median survival and time to nursing home admission after diagnosis	meta-analysis	5,553,960	Median survival from diagnosis appeared to be strongly dependent on age, ranging from 8.9 years at mean age 60 for women to 2.2 years at mean age 85 for men ... Median time to nursing home admission was 3.3 years (interquartile range 1.9 to 4.0). 13% of people were admitted in the first year after diagnosis, increasing to 57% at five years	BMJ 2025 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 39778977
Sleep EEG brain age index (digital marker) Care, carers and services	Prevention	Harm why Direction is for an older-than-chronological sleep EEG brain age: each 10-year increase in the index was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia, consistent across sex and age groups.	Incident dementia per 10-year increase in sleep-EEG brain age index	meta-analysis	7,105	each 10-year increase in BAI was associated with a 39% higher risk of incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.21-1.59]; P < .001) after adjustment for covariates. These associations remained after additional adjustment for comorbidities and apnea-hypopnea index scores (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.14-1.50]; P < .001) and apolipoprotein E ε4 (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; P = .03)	JAMA network open 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 41854616

How this table was built, and where it is weak →

Every row of the evidence table

Every row