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.

50/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency of delusions and hallucinations in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to investigate factors associated with each or the combination of the two. Design This was a cross-sectional, case-control study. Setting Neuropsychiatry and Memory Group, The Johns Hopkins University, USA. Participants Three hundred and forty-two community-residing patients with probable AD according to NINCDS/ADRDA criteria were included in the study. Measures Patients were assessed clinically for the presence of psychotic symptoms using the DSM-IV glossary definitions. The patients were also rated on standardized measures of cognitive impairment, depression, extrapyramidal symptoms, functional impairment and general health. Results Seventy-five (22%) AD patients had delusions only, nine (3%) had hallucinations only and 30 (9%) had both delusions and hallucinations. Hallucinations were associated with less education, African-American race, more severe dementia, longer duration of illness, falls and use of anxiolytics. Delusions were associated with older age, depression, aggression, poor general health and use of antihypertensives. Patients with both delusions and hallucinations were similar to the patients with delusions only. Conclusions This study confirms the high prevalence of psychotic symptoms in AD patients encountered in clinical practice and suggests that individual psychotic symptoms have different associations.

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

APA 7th

Bassiony, M. M., Steinberg, M. S., Warren, A., Rosenblatt, A., Baker, A. S., & Lyketsos, C. G. (2000). Delusions and hallucinations in Alzheimer's disease: prevalence and clinical correlates. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(200002)15:2<99::aid-gps82>3.0.co;2-5

Vancouver

Bassiony MM, Steinberg MS, Warren A, Rosenblatt A, Baker AS, Lyketsos CG. Delusions and hallucinations in Alzheimer's disease: prevalence and clinical correlates. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2000. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(200002)15:2<99::aid-gps82>3.0.co;2-5. PMID: 10679840.

BibTeX

@article{bassiony2000-10679840,
  author  = {Bassiony, M. M. and Steinberg, M. S. and Warren, A. and Rosenblatt, A. and Baker, A. S. and Lyketsos, C. G.},
  title   = {{Delusions and hallucinations in Alzheimer's disease: prevalence and clinical correlates}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2000},
  doi     = {10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(200002)15:2<99::aid-gps82>3.0.co;2-5},
  pmid    = {10679840},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(200002)15:2<99::aid-gps82>3.0.co;2-5}
}

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 case-control study. People with the condition are compared with people without it, looking backward at past exposures. Recall of the past can be uneven between the groups, and the design shows association, not cause.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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

Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency of delusions and hallucinations in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to investigate factors associated with each or the combination of the two.
Results Seventy-five (22%) AD patients had delusions only, nine (3%) had hallucinations only and 30 (9%) had both delusions and hallucinations.
Hallucinations were associated with less education, African-American race, more severe dementia, longer duration of illness, falls and use of anxiolytics.
Delusions were associated with older age, depression, aggression, poor general health and use of antihypertensives.
Conclusions This study confirms the high prevalence of psychotic symptoms in AD patients encountered in clinical practice and suggests that individual psychotic symptoms have different associations.

Study details

Study designcase-control study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 50/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	6 / 12	A case-control study
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	2000 — older than 20 years, still counted
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)
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 10679840)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	29 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total	50 / 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 Clinical safety from nearby years

Also in Clinical safety

96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →