Home › Research › Risk factors
Epidemiology and risk factors of dementia
Wiesje M. van der Flier. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2005-11-16
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
ementia refers to a syndrome that is characterised by progressive deterioration of cognitive functions.Neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as apathy, agitation, and depression, are also common.With increasing loss of function, a patient is gradually robbed of his or her independence.Eventually, placement in a nursing home may be necessary.Patients with dementia usually survive 7-10 years after onset of symptoms.Dementia places a tremendous burden not only on caregivers, but also on society, and has already been established as one of the major challenges of this century.1 Epidemiology refers to the medical science that studies frequencies of disease. 2 Measures of frequency that are often used in epidemiology are prevalence and incidence.The concept of prevalence refers to the number of patients with a disease at a certain moment in time, whereas measures of incidence reflect the number of new cases over time.Although important for health care planners, the knowledge of frequency of disease in itself is not the goal of epidemiology.Rather, the aim is to gain insight into the mechanisms that cause disease, eventually to be able to cure or prevent disease.Therefore, frequencies are studied in relation to determinants, or risk factors.Although marked as ''the epidemic of our century'', still surprisingly little is known about the epidemiology of dementia.In this chapter, a brief overview will be given of the epidemiology and risk factors of dementia.Furthermore, we comment on some specific methodological problems associated with studies in dementia. PREVALENCEPrevalence is defined as the proportion of a population that has disease at a specific point in time.Prevalence estimates vary highly between studies.These variations may be due to variations in study population-that is, reflect real differences.For example, age is the most important risk factor for dementia.Differences in age between populations will result in different estimates of prevalence.Alternatively, and just as plausible, is the assumption that differences in prevalence estimates are caused by methodological differences, such as study design and diagnostic procedure.One solution to obtain more certainty about the value of prevalence is to combine data from multiple studies in a meta-analysis.Meta-analyses have two advantages.First, small differences due to methodological differences between studies level out.Secondly, and more importantly, the analysis is based on a far larger sample than a single s
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van der Flier, W. M. (2005). Epidemiology and risk factors of dementia. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.082867
Vancouver
van der Flier WM. Epidemiology and risk factors of dementia. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 2005. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.082867. PMID: 16291918.
BibTeX
@article{vanderflier2005-16291918,
author = {van der Flier, Wiesje M.},
title = {{Epidemiology and risk factors of dementia}},
journal = {Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery \& Psychiatry},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1136/jnnp.2005.082867},
pmid = {16291918},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.082867}
}
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.
Key findings
- PREVALENCEPrevalence is defined as the proportion of a population that has disease at a specific point in time.Prevalence estimates vary highly between studies.These variations may be due to variations in study population-that is, reflect real differences.For example, age is the most important risk factor for dementia.Differences in age between populations will result in different estimates of prevalence.Alternatively, and just as plausible, is the assumption that differences in prevalence estimates are caused by methodological differences, such as study design and diagnostic procedure.One solution to obtain more certainty about the value of prevalence is to combine data from multiple studies in a meta-analysis.Meta-analyses have two advantages.First, small differences due to methodological differences between studies level out.Secondly, and more importantly, the analysis is based on a far larger sample than a single study could ever realise, resulting in more precise estimates.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Effect size6.4%; 4.4%; 1.6%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2005 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | A review of other studies — randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16291918) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.