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: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Background and purpose Recent investigations have suggested an important role of statins in the prevention of stroke and dementia independent of their lipid-lowering properties. Using transcranial Doppler sonography (TCD), we examined acetazolamide reactivity as a marker of cerebral vasoreactivity in patients with subcortical small-vessel disease before and after pravastatin treatment. Methods In 16 patients (mean age 68+/-10 years) with subcortical small-vessel disease, cerebral vasomotor reactivity was tested using TCD insonating the middle cerebral artery. Cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) increase after bolus injection of 1 g acetazolamide was determined before and after 2-month treatment with pravastatin sodium 20 mg daily. Results Relative CBFV increase was significantly greater after pravastatin treatment (41.9+/-23.7% versus 55.7+/-18.3%, P=0.004). Comparison of CBFV at rest before and after treatment with pravastatin did not show significant differences. There was a strong negative correlation between the pravastatin-induced enhancement of vasomotor reactivity and the pretreatment CBFV increase (beta=-0.64, P=0.019). No associations were found between the effect of pravastatin on vasomotor reactivity and pretreatment levels or changes of LDL cholesterol. Conclusions This pilot study provides the first evidence for a significant improvement of cerebral vasomotor reactivity by statin therapy in patients with cerebral small-vessel disease. The results may help to elucidate the preventive effect of statins and provide insights into the pathophysiology of cerebral small-vessel disease.

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

APA 7th

Sterzer, P., Meintzschel, F., Rösler, A., Lanfermann, H., Steinmetz, H., & Sitzer, M. (2001). Pravastatin improves cerebral vasomotor reactivity in patients with subcortical small-vessel disease. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs1201.099663

Vancouver

Sterzer P, Meintzschel F, Rösler A, Lanfermann H, Steinmetz H, Sitzer M. Pravastatin improves cerebral vasomotor reactivity in patients with subcortical small-vessel disease. Stroke. 2001. doi:10.1161/hs1201.099663. PMID: 11739979.

BibTeX

@article{sterzer2001-11739979,
  author  = {Sterzer, P. and Meintzschel, F. and Rösler, A. and Lanfermann, H. and Steinmetz, H. and Sitzer, M.},
  title   = {{Pravastatin improves cerebral vasomotor reactivity in patients with subcortical small-vessel disease}},
  journal = {Stroke},
  year    = {2001},
  doi     = {10.1161/hs1201.099663},
  pmid    = {11739979},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1161/hs1201.099663}
}

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 trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record lists 16 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “23.7%; 18.3%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

Results Relative CBFV increase was significantly greater after pravastatin treatment (41.9+/-23.7% versus 55.7+/-18.3%, P=0.004).
Comparison of CBFV at rest before and after treatment with pravastatin did not show significant differences.
Conclusions This pilot study provides the first evidence for a significant improvement of cerebral vasomotor reactivity by statin therapy in patients with cerebral small-vessel disease.
The results may help to elucidate the preventive effect of statins and provide insights into the pathophysiology of cerebral small-vessel disease.

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

Study details

Participants16
Effect size23.7%; 18.3%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 (Stroke)
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	1 / 5	2001 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	1 / 4	16 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 11739979)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
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 “subcortical”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “subcortical”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →