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. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA. PRISMA is an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Key findings

Why it matters

Describes the PRISMA statement, a list of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; it is not about Alzheimer's specifically.

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record 4 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence left out, no data; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 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 7 of 7; Citations per year 5 of 5; Impact for its field and year 6 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 4 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 54 of the 91 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.54 of the 91 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence and senior author's track record, so those were left out: it earned 54 of the 91 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (BMJ)
Journal's citation record 4 / 4 BMJ: journal h-index 608 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence — / 5 No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2009 — 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 7 / 7 Cited 82,399 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 5 / 5 4,336.8 citations a year over 19 year(s) since 2009
Impact for its field and year 6 / 6 Cited 49.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 4 / 4 Cited 6,819 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of Oxford: institution h-index 2,205 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 3 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19622551)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 54 / 91 Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 54 of the 91 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

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

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.

APA 7th

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Vancouver

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535. PMID: 19622551.

BibTeX

@article{moher2009-19622551,
  author  = {Moher, David and Liberati, Alessandro and Tetzlaff, Jennifer and Altman, Douglas G. and {PRISMA Group}},
  title   = {{Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement}},
  journal = {BMJ},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1136/bmj.b2535},
  pmid    = {19622551},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also in Cognitive tests and assessment

88 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →