Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Vascular contributions

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Vascular dementia (VD) is a neurocognitive disorder whose precise definition is still up for debate. VD generally refers to dementia that is primarily caused by cerebrovascular disease or impaired cerebral blood flow. It is a subset of vascular cognitive impairment, a class of diseases that relate any cerebrovascular injury as a causal or correlating factor for cognitive decline, most commonly seen in the elderly. Patients who present with both cognitive impairment and clinical or radiologic indications of cerebrovascular pathology should have vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, examined and treated. While these strategies may be more effective at avoiding dementia than at ameliorating it, there is a compelling case for intensive secondary stroke prevention in these patients. Repeated stroke is related to an increased chance of cognitive decline, and poststroke dementia is connected with an increased risk of death. In general, most physicians follow recommendations for secondary stroke prevention in patients with VD, which can be accomplished by the use of antithrombotic medicines such as antiplatelets (aspirin, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, cilostazol, etc.). In individuals with a high risk of atherosclerosis and those with documented symptomatic cerebrovascular illness, antiplatelets treatment lowers the risk of stroke. While this therapy strategy of prevention and rigorous risk management has a compelling justification, there is only limited and indirect data to support it. The following systematic review examines the role of antiplatelets in the management of vascular dementia in published clinical trials and studies and comments on the current evidence available to support their use and highlights the need for further study.

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

APA 7th

Alexander, P., Visagan, S., Jawhar, S., Kare, A., Issa, N., Issa, R., et al. (2022). Antiplatelets and Vascular Dementia: A Systematic Review. Journal of aging research. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9780067

Vancouver

Alexander P, Visagan S, Jawhar S, Kare A, Issa N, Issa R, et al. Antiplatelets and Vascular Dementia: A Systematic Review. Journal of aging research. 2022. doi:10.1155/2022/9780067. PMID: 36245899.

BibTeX

@article{alexander2022-36245899,
  author  = {Alexander, Peter and Visagan, Shakthi and Jawhar, Sara and Kare, Amogh and Issa, Noor and Issa, Reem and Jawhar, Abbas and Thomas, Sneha and others},
  title   = {{Antiplatelets and Vascular Dementia: A Systematic Review}},
  journal = {Journal of aging research},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1155/2022/9780067},
  pmid    = {36245899},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9780067}
}

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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 70/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 39 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 70 of 100. Total 70 of 100.39 of the 56 points we could judge = 70 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of aging research)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
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 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 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 36245899)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 39 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100.
Total 70 / 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 Vascular contributions

Also tagged “cholinesterase”

271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Vascular contributions

See all studies in Vascular contributions →