Home › Research › Prevention trials
Future Directions for Dementia Risk Reduction and Prevention Research: An International Research Network on Dementia Prevention Consensus
Kaarin J Anstey, Ruth Peters, Lidan Zheng, Deborah E Barnes, Carol Brayne, Henry Brodaty, John Chalmers, Linda Clare et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2020
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
In the past decade a large body of evidence has accumulated on risk factors for dementia, primarily from Europe and North America. Drawing on recent integrative reviews and a consensus workshop, the International Research Network on Dementia Prevention developed a consensus statement on priorities for future research. Significant gaps in geographical location, representativeness, diversity, duration, mechanisms, and research on combinations of risk factors were identified. Future research to inform dementia risk reduction should fill gaps in the evidence base, take a life-course, multi-domain approach, and inform population health approaches that improve the brain-health of whole communities.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Anstey, K. J., Peters, R., Zheng, L., Barnes, D. E., Brayne, C., Brodaty, H., et al. (2020). Future Directions for Dementia Risk Reduction and Prevention Research: An International Research Network on Dementia Prevention Consensus. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200674
Vancouver
Anstey KJ, Peters R, Zheng L, Barnes DE, Brayne C, Brodaty H, et al. Future Directions for Dementia Risk Reduction and Prevention Research: An International Research Network on Dementia Prevention Consensus. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2020. doi:10.3233/jad-200674. PMID: 32925063.
BibTeX
@article{anstey2020-32925063,
author = {Anstey, Kaarin J and Peters, Ruth and Zheng, Lidan and Barnes, Deborah E and Brayne, Carol and Brodaty, Henry and Chalmers, John and Clare, Linda and others},
title = {{Future Directions for Dementia Risk Reduction and Prevention Research: An International Research Network on Dementia Prevention Consensus}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3233/jad-200674},
pmid = {32925063},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200674}
}
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
- Significant gaps in geographical location, representativeness, diversity, duration, mechanisms, and research on combinations of risk factors were identified.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32925063) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”
304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.