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.

64/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Dementia is one of the most common neurological disorders in the elderly. Aging is associated with a large increase in the prevalence and incidence of degenerative (Alzheimer's disease) and vascular dementia, leading to a devastating loss of independence. In view of increasing longevity of populations worldwide, prevention and treatment of dementia has turned into a major public health challenge. In the past decade, longitudinal studies have shown a close association between high blood pressure in middle age, cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, in the late life. Pathophysiologically, a summation of cerebrovascular damage, white matter changes and pre-existing asymptomatic Alzheimer's brain lesions may lead to dementia, even when each type of lesion individually is not sufficiently severe to cause it. Longitudinal studies assessing the beneficial role of antihypertensive drugs on cognitive decline and dementia have produced promising results. There are few randomised placebo controlled studies, although some of these have produced positive results. Results of three recent meta-analyses are inconsistent, possibly due to methodological issues. Further long-term randomised trials, designed especially to assess a link between antihypertensive therapy and cognitive decline or dementia are therefore needed.

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

APA 7th

Duron, E., & Hanon, O. (2008). Hypertension, cognitive decline and dementia. Archives of cardiovascular diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1875-2136(08)71801-1

Vancouver

Duron E, Hanon O. Hypertension, cognitive decline and dementia. Archives of cardiovascular diseases. 2008. doi:10.1016/s1875-2136(08)71801-1. PMID: 18477946.

BibTeX

@article{duron2008-18477946,
  author  = {Duron, E. and Hanon, O.},
  title   = {{Hypertension, cognitive decline and dementia}},
  journal = {Archives of cardiovascular diseases},
  year    = {2008},
  doi     = {10.1016/s1875-2136(08)71801-1},
  pmid    = {18477946},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1875-2136(08)71801-1}
}

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 pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
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

Aging is associated with a large increase in the prevalence and incidence of degenerative (Alzheimer's disease) and vascular dementia, leading to a devastating loss of independence.
Longitudinal studies assessing the beneficial role of antihypertensive drugs on cognitive decline and dementia have produced promising results.
There are few randomised placebo controlled studies, although some of these have produced positive results.
Results of three recent meta-analyses are inconsistent, possibly due to methodological issues.

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

Study details

Study designmeta-analysis
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 64/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of cardiovascular diseases)
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	2008 — 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	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 18477946)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	37 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total	64 / 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 “hypertension”

8 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hypertension”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 8 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →