Home › Research › Drug development
A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses that Evaluate Risk Factors for Dementia to Evaluate the Quantity, Quality, and Global Representativeness of Evidence
Anstey KJ, Ee N, Eramudugolla R, Jagger C, Peters R.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2019-01-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background The translation of evidence on dementia risk factors into clinical advice requires careful evaluation of the methodology and scope of data from which risk estimates are obtained. Objective To evaluate the quantity, quality, and representativeness of evidence, we conducted a review of reviews of risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), Vascular dementia (VaD), and Any Dementia. Methods PubMed, Cochrane library, and the Global Index Medicus were searched to identify meta-analyses of observational studies of risk factors for AD, VaD, and Any Dementia. PROSPERO CRD42017053920. Results Meta-analysis data were available for 34 risk factors for AD, 26 risk factors for Any Dementia and eight for VaD. Quality of evidence varied greatly in terms of the number of contributing studies, whether data on midlife exposure was available, and consistency of measures. The most evidence was available for cardiovascular risk factors. The most geographically representative evidence (five of six global regions) was available for alcohol, physical activity, diabetes, high midlife BMI, antihypertensives, and motor function. Evidence from Australia/Oceana or Africa was limited. With the exception of diabetes, meta-analysis data were unavailable from Latin America/Caribbean. Midlife specific data were only available for cholesterol and arthritis. Conclusion There is a lack of midlife specific data, limited data on VaD, and a lack of geographical representation for many risk factors for dementia. The quality, quantity, and representativeness of evidence needs to be considered before recommendations are made about the relevance of risk factors in mid- or late-life or for dementia subtypes.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Anstey, K. J., Ee, N., Eramudugolla, R., Jagger, C., & Peters, R. (2019). A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses that Evaluate Risk Factors for Dementia to Evaluate the Quantity, Quality, and Global Representativeness of Evidence. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190181
Vancouver
Anstey KJ, Ee N, Eramudugolla R, Jagger C, Peters R. A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses that Evaluate Risk Factors for Dementia to Evaluate the Quantity, Quality, and Global Representativeness of Evidence. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-190181. PMID: 31306123.
BibTeX
@article{anstey2019-31306123,
author = {Anstey, K. J. and Ee, N. and Eramudugolla, R. and Jagger, C. and Peters, R.},
title = {{A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses that Evaluate Risk Factors for Dementia to Evaluate the Quantity, Quality, and Global Representativeness of Evidence}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3233/jad-190181},
pmid = {31306123},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190181}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Meta-analysis data were available for 34 risk factors for AD, 26 risk factors for Any Dementia and eight for VaD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31306123) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development
Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”
304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.