This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

60/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the stress of caregiving for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) patient accelerates the likelihood of exceeding hypertensive blood pressure (BP) criteria in periodic longitudinal home assessments. In this cohort study, participants consisted of spousal caregivers of AD patients (n = 144) and demographically equivalent non-caregiving controls (n = 47). Thirty percent of caregivers and 33% of controls were receiving antihypertensive treatment at study entry. Supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) was assessed by semi-automated recordings taken in the home every 6 months for 2 to 6 years. Survival analyses (Cox proportional hazards models) were used to determine whether the hazard for developing hypertension (DBP>140, SBP>90) was greater in caregivers than in controls, and whether increased hazards were related to background characteristics or the extent of caregiving demands. Based on periodic 6-month assessments of BP over 6 years, the hazards of meeting criteria for borderline hypertension were greater for caregivers than for controls (Cox Proportional Hazards, chi2 [1, N = 174] = 4.86, p = 0.03). This difference remained statistically significant (p<0.05) after controlling for age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, body mass index, and use of antihypertensive medications. Increased risk of hypertension was not related to the extent of daily living assistance provided, patient problem behaviors, or caregiver distress. The chronic stress of caring for an AD spouse may have adverse effects on blood pressure; however, the mechanism for this relationship remains unclear.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Shaw, W. S., Patterson, T. L., Ziegler, M. G., Dimsdale, J. E., Semple, S. J., & Grant, I. (1999). Accelerated risk of hypertensive blood pressure recordings among Alzheimer caregivers. Journal of psychosomatic research. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00084-1

Vancouver

Shaw WS, Patterson TL, Ziegler MG, Dimsdale JE, Semple SJ, Grant I. Accelerated risk of hypertensive blood pressure recordings among Alzheimer caregivers. Journal of psychosomatic research. 1999. doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00084-1. PMID: 10193912.

BibTeX

@article{shaw1999-10193912,
  author  = {Shaw, W. S. and Patterson, T. L. and Ziegler, M. G. and Dimsdale, J. E. and Semple, S. J. and Grant, I.},
  title   = {{Accelerated risk of hypertensive blood pressure recordings among Alzheimer caregivers}},
  journal = {Journal of psychosomatic research},
  year    = {1999},
  doi     = {10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00084-1},
  pmid    = {10193912},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00084-1}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 144 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

This difference remained statistically significant (p<0.05) after controlling for age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, body mass index, and use of antihypertensive medications.
Increased risk of hypertension was not related to the extent of daily living assistance provided, patient problem behaviors, or caregiver distress.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants144
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 60/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / blinded 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of psychosomatic research)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	1999 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	2 / 4	144 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 10193912)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	35 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100.
Total	60 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Drug development from nearby years

Also tagged “caregivers”

4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregivers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →