Home › Research › Prevention trials
AgeWell.de - study protocol of a pragmatic multi-center cluster-randomized controlled prevention trial against cognitive decline in older primary care patients
Zülke A, Luck T, Pabst A, Hoffmann W, Thyrian JR, Gensichen J, Kaduszkiewicz H, König HH et al.. BMC geriatrics, 2019-08-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
So far, however, only few such multi-component trials have been launched, but yielding promising results. We hypothesize that over the 2-year follow-up period the intervention group A will benefit significantly from the intervention program in terms of preserved cognitive function/delayed cognitive decline (primary outcome), and other relevant (secondary) outcomes (e.g. quality of life, social activities, depressive symptomatology, cost-effectiveness). Compared to previous trials, AgeWell.de covers an even broader set of interventions suggested to be beneficial for the intended outcomes.
Key findings
- So far, however, only few such multi-component trials have been launched, but yielding promising results.
- We hypothesize that over the 2-year follow-up period the intervention group A will benefit significantly from the intervention program in terms of preserved cognitive function/delayed cognitive decline (primary outcome), and other relevant (secondary) outcomes (e.g. quality of life, social activities, depressive symptomatology, cost-effectiveness).
- Compared to previous trials, AgeWell.de covers an even broader set of interventions suggested to be beneficial for the intended outcomes.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants1,152
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported 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 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 (BMC geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | 1,152 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 31370792) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Zülke, A., Luck, T., Pabst, A., Hoffmann, W., Thyrian, JR., Gensichen, J., et al. (2019). AgeWell.de - study protocol of a pragmatic multi-center cluster-randomized controlled prevention trial against cognitive decline in older primary care patients. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1212-1
Vancouver
Zülke A, Luck T, Pabst A, Hoffmann W, Thyrian JR, Gensichen J, et al. AgeWell.de - study protocol of a pragmatic multi-center cluster-randomized controlled prevention trial against cognitive decline in older primary care patients. BMC geriatrics. 2019. doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1212-1. PMID: 31370792.
BibTeX
@article{zulke2019-31370792,
author = {Zülke, A. and Luck, T. and Pabst, A. and Hoffmann, W. and Thyrian, JR. and Gensichen, J. and Kaduszkiewicz, H. and König, H. H. and others},
title = {{AgeWell.de - study protocol of a pragmatic multi-center cluster-randomized controlled prevention trial against cognitive decline in older primary care patients}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-019-1212-1},
pmid = {31370792},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1212-1}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “cognitive-function”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.