Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Increasing evidence links cognitive-decline and Alzheimer's disease (AD) to various sleep disorders, including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). With increasing age, there are substantial differences in OSA's prevalence, associated comorbidities and phenotypic presentation. An important question for sleep and AD researchers is whether OSA's heterogeneity results in varying cognitive-outcomes in older-adults compared to middle-aged adults. In this review, we systematically integrated research examining OSA and cognition, mild cognitive-impairment (MCI) and AD/AD biomarkers; including the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, particularly focusing on characterizing the heterogeneity of OSA and its cognitive-outcomes. Broadly, in middle-aged adults, OSA is often associated with mild impairment in attention, memory and executive function. In older-adults, OSA is not associated with any particular pattern of cognitive-impairment at cross-section; however, OSA is associated with the development of MCI or AD with symptomatic patients who have a higher likelihood of associated disturbed sleep/cognitive-impairment driving these findings. CPAP treatment may be effective in improving cognition in OSA patients with AD. Recent trends demonstrate links between OSA and AD-biomarkers of neurodegeneration across all age-groups. These distinct patterns provide the foundation for envisioning better characterization of OSA and the need for more sensitive/novel sleep-dependent cognitive assessments to assess OSA-related cognitive-impairment.

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

APA 7th

Bubu, O. M., Andrade, A. G., Umasabor-Bubu, O. Q., Hogan, M. M., Turner, A. D., de Leon, M. J., et al. (2020). Obstructive sleep apnea, cognition and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review integrating three decades of multidisciplinary research. Sleep medicine reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101250

Vancouver

Bubu OM, Andrade AG, Umasabor-Bubu OQ, Hogan MM, Turner AD, de Leon MJ, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea, cognition and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review integrating three decades of multidisciplinary research. Sleep medicine reviews. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101250. PMID: 31881487.

BibTeX

@article{bubu2020-31881487,
  author  = {Bubu, O. M. and Andrade, A. G. and Umasabor-Bubu, O. Q. and Hogan, M. M. and Turner, A. D. and de Leon, M. J. and Ogedegbe, G. and Ayappa, I. and others},
  title   = {{Obstructive sleep apnea, cognition and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review integrating three decades of multidisciplinary research}},
  journal = {Sleep medicine reviews},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101250},
  pmid    = {31881487},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2019.101250}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 34 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.34 of the 58 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Sleep medicine reviews)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
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 A review of other studies — randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31881487)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 34 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total 59 / 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 Risk factors

Also tagged “apnea”

196 studies in the library carry the topic tag “apnea”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 196 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →