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.

47/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Arterial hypertension and stroke are strong independent risk factors for the development of cognitive impairment and dementia. Persistently elevated blood pressure (BP) is known to impair cognitive function, however onset of new cognitive decline is common following a large and multiple mini strokes. Among various forms of dementia the most prevalent include Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) which often present with similar clinical symptoms and challenging diagnosis. While hypertension is the most important modifiable vascular risk factor with antihypertensive therapy reducing the risk of stroke and potentially slowing cognitive decline, optimal BP levels for maintaining an ideal age-related mental performance are yet to be established. Cognition has improved following the use of at least one representative agent of the major drug classes with further neuroprotection with renin angiotensin inhibitors and calcium channel blockers in the hypertensive elderly. However, a reduction in BP may worsen cerebral perfusion causing an increased risk of CV complications due to the J-curve phenomenon. Given the uncertainties and conflicting results from randomized trials regarding the hypertension management in the elderly, particularly octogenarians, antihypertensive approaches are primarily based on expert opinion. Herein, we summarize available data linking arterial hypertension to cognitive decline and antihypertensive approach with potential benefits in improving cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients.

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

APA 7th

Tadic, M., Cuspidi, C., & Hering, D. (2016). Hypertension and cognitive dysfunction in elderly: blood pressure management for this global burden. BMC cardiovascular disorders. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-016-0386-0

Vancouver

Tadic M, Cuspidi C, Hering D. Hypertension and cognitive dysfunction in elderly: blood pressure management for this global burden. BMC cardiovascular disorders. 2016. doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0386-0. PMID: 27809779.

BibTeX

@article{tadic2016-27809779,
  author  = {Tadic, M. and Cuspidi, C. and Hering, D.},
  title   = {{Hypertension and cognitive dysfunction in elderly: blood pressure management for this global burden}},
  journal = {BMC cardiovascular disorders},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12872-016-0386-0},
  pmid    = {27809779},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-016-0386-0}
}

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 narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
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 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

However, a reduction in BP may worsen cerebral perfusion causing an increased risk of CV complications due to the J-curve phenomenon.
Given the uncertainties and conflicting results from randomized trials regarding the hypertension management in the elderly, particularly octogenarians, antihypertensive approaches are primarily based on expert opinion.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a peer-reviewed 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC cardiovascular disorders)
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	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	2016 — within 20 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)
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 27809779)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	27 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100.
Total	47 / 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 “cognitive-dysfunction”

4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-dysfunction”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →