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.

79/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Background Results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive control of systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment, but not probable dementia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). Interpretation Intensive treatment to lower systolic blood pressure did not result in a clinically relevant difference compared with standard treatment in memory or processing speed in a subgroup of participants from SPRINT.

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

APA 7th

Rapp, SR., Gaussoin, S. A., Sachs, B. C., Chelune, G., Supiano, M. A., Lerner, A. J., et al. (2020). Effects of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on domain-specific cognitive function: a substudy of the SPRINT randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30319-7

Vancouver

Rapp SR, Gaussoin SA, Sachs BC, Chelune G, Supiano MA, Lerner AJ, et al. Effects of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on domain-specific cognitive function: a substudy of the SPRINT randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. Neurology. 2020. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30319-7. PMID: 33098800.

BibTeX

@article{rapp2020-33098800,
  author  = {Rapp, SR. and Gaussoin, S. A. and Sachs, B. C. and Chelune, G. and Supiano, M. A. and Lerner, A. J. and Wadley, V. G. and Wilson, V. M. and others},
  title   = {{Effects of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on domain-specific cognitive function: a substudy of the SPRINT randomised controlled trial}},
  journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30319-7},
  pmid    = {33098800},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30319-7}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record lists 2,800 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 high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. 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

Background Results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive control of systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment, but not probable dementia.
Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment).
Interpretation Intensive treatment to lower systolic blood pressure did not result in a clinically relevant difference compared with standard treatment in memory or processing speed in a subgroup of participants from SPRINT.

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

Study details

Study designrandomized controlled trial
Participants2,800
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 79/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 48 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet. Neurology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial
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	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	2,800 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	1 / 2	Randomized (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
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33098800)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	48 / 61	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total	79 / 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 “randomized-controlled-trial”

12 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomized-controlled-trial”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 12 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →