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.

40/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Vascular contributions

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

We reanalyzed and compared current prevalence estimates of Alzheimer's disease in Europe. Studies characterized as follows qualified for comparison: dementia defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 3rd edition, or equivalent criteria; Alzheimer's disease diagnosed by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke-Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association or equivalent criteria; case-finding through direct individual examination; appropriate sample size; and inclusion of institutionalized persons. Of the 23 European surveys of dementia considered, six fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When age and sex were considered, there were no major geographic differences in the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease across Europe. Overall European prevalence (per 100 population) for the age groups 30 to 59, 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80 to 89 years was, respectively, 0.02, 0.3, 3.2, and 10.8. Prevalence increased exponentially with advancing age and, in some populations, was consistently higher in women. Prevalence remained stable over 15 years in one study.

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

APA 7th

Rocca, W. A., Hofman, A., Brayne, C., Breteler, M. M., Clarke, M., Copeland, JR., et al. (1991). Frequency and distribution of Alzheimer's disease in Europe: a collaborative study of 1980-1990 prevalence findings. The EURODEM-Prevalence Research Group. Annals of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410300310

Vancouver

Rocca WA, Hofman A, Brayne C, Breteler MM, Clarke M, Copeland JR, et al. Frequency and distribution of Alzheimer's disease in Europe: a collaborative study of 1980-1990 prevalence findings. The EURODEM-Prevalence Research Group. Annals of neurology. 1991. doi:10.1002/ana.410300310. PMID: 1952826.

BibTeX

@article{rocca1991-1952826,
  author  = {Rocca, W. A. and Hofman, A. and Brayne, C. and Breteler, M. M. and Clarke, M. and Copeland, JR. and Dartigues, J. F. and Engedal, K. and others},
  title   = {{Frequency and distribution of Alzheimer's disease in Europe: a collaborative study of 1980-1990 prevalence findings. The EURODEM-Prevalence Research Group}},
  journal = {Annals of neurology},
  year    = {1991},
  doi     = {10.1002/ana.410300310},
  pmid    = {1952826},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410300310}
}

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: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
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 low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

Overall European prevalence (per 100 population) for the age groups 30 to 59, 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80 to 89 years was, respectively, 0.02, 0.3, 3.2, and 10.8.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 40/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of neurology)
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	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	1991 — 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 1952826)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	23 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total	40 / 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 Vascular contributions from nearby years

Also in Vascular contributions

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

Similar studies

More on Vascular contributions

See all studies in Vascular contributions →