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.

76/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is more prevalent in Taiwan than in most countries. This population-based cohort study evaluated the dementia risk associated with CKD. Methods Using claims data of 1,000,000 insured residents covered in the universal health insurance of Taiwan, we selected 37049 adults with CKD newly diagnosed from 2000-2006 as the CKD cohort. We also randomly selected 74098 persons free from CKD and other kidney diseases, frequency matched with age, sex and the date of CKD diagnosed. Incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) of dementia were evaluated by the end of 2009. Results Subjects in the CKD cohort were more prevalent with comorbidities than those in the non-CKD cohort (p <0.0001). The dementia incidence was higher in the CKD cohort than in the non-CKD cohort (9.30 vs. 5.55 per 1,000 person-years), with an overall HR of 1.41 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-1.50), controlling for sex, age, comorbidities and medicaitions. The risk was similar in men and women but increased sharply with age to an HR of 133 (95% CI, 68.9-256) for the elderly. However, the age-specific CKD cohort to non-CKD cohort incidence rate ratio decreased with age, with the highest ratio of 16.0 (95% CI, 2.00-128) in the youngest group. Among comorbidities and medications, alcoholism and taking benzodiazepines were also associated with dementia with elevated adjusted HRs of 3.05 (95% CI 2.17-4.28) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.14-1.32), respectively. Conclusions Patients with CKD could have an elevated dementia risk. CKD patients with comorbidity deserve attention to prevent dementia.

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

APA 7th

Cheng, K. C., Chen, Y. L., Lai, S. W., Mou, C. H., Tsai, P. Y., & Sung, F. C. (2012). Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an elevated risk of dementia: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. BMC nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-13-129

Vancouver

Cheng KC, Chen YL, Lai SW, Mou CH, Tsai PY, Sung FC. Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an elevated risk of dementia: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. BMC nephrology. 2012. doi:10.1186/1471-2369-13-129. PMID: 23020192.

BibTeX

@article{cheng2012-23020192,
  author  = {Cheng, K. C. and Chen, Y. L. and Lai, S. W. and Mou, C. H. and Tsai, P. Y. and Sung, F. C.},
  title   = {{Patients with chronic kidney disease are at an elevated risk of dementia: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan}},
  journal = {BMC nephrology},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.1186/1471-2369-13-129},
  pmid    = {23020192},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-13-129}
}

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 follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 37,049 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

This population-based cohort study evaluated the dementia risk associated with CKD.
Results Subjects in the CKD cohort were more prevalent with comorbidities than those in the non-CKD cohort (p <0.0001).
The dementia incidence was higher in the CKD cohort than in the non-CKD cohort (9.30 vs. 5.55 per 1,000 person-years), with an overall HR of 1.41 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-1.50), controlling for sex, age, comorbidities and medicaitions.
Among comorbidities and medications, alcoholism and taking benzodiazepines were also associated with dementia with elevated adjusted HRs of 3.05 (95% CI 2.17-4.28) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.14-1.32), respectively.

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

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants37,049
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 76/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported 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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC nephrology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	37,049 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
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 23020192)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	44 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100.
Total	76 / 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 Digital health tools from nearby years

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →