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 62 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives We examined whether accordance to the DASH (Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension) and Mediterranean diets is associated with slower cognitive decline in a prospective Chicago cohort study of older persons, the Memory and Aging Project. Methods The sample comprised 826 Memory and Aging Project participants (aged 81.5 ± 7.1 years) who completed a 144-item food frequency questionnaire at baseline and 2 or more cognitive assessments over 4.1 years. Dietary scores were computed for accordance to the DASH diet (0-10) and the Mediterranean diet (MedDietScore) (0-55). For both, higher scores reflect greater accordance. Both patterns share at least 3 common food components. Cognitive function was assessed annually with 19 cognitive tests from which global cognitive scores and summary measures are computed. Results The mean global cognitive score at baseline was 0.12 (range, -3.23 to 1.60) with an overall mean annual change in score of -0.08 standardized units. Only 13 participants had possible dementia. The mean DASH score was 4.1 (range, 1.0-8.5) and the MedDietScore was 31.3 (range, 18-46). In mixed models adjusted for covariates, a 1-unit difference in DASH score was associated with a slower rate of global cognitive decline by 0.007 standardized units (standard error of estimate = 0.003, p = 0.03). Similarly, a 1-unit-higher MedDietScore was associated with a slower rate of global cognitive decline by 0.002 standardized units (standard error of estimate = 0.001, p = 0.01). Conclusions These findings support the hypothesis that both the DASH and Mediterranean diet patterns are associated with slower rates of cognitive decline in the same cohort of older persons.

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

APA 7th

Tangney, C. C., Li, H., Wang, Y., Barnes, L., Schneider, J. A., Bennett, D. A., et al. (2014). Relation of DASH- and Mediterranean-like dietary patterns to cognitive decline in older persons. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000884

Vancouver

Tangney CC, Li H, Wang Y, Barnes L, Schneider JA, Bennett DA, et al. Relation of DASH- and Mediterranean-like dietary patterns to cognitive decline in older persons. Neurology. 2014. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000000884. PMID: 25230996.

BibTeX

@article{tangney2014-25230996,
  author  = {Tangney, C. C. and Li, H. and Wang, Y. and Barnes, L. and Schneider, J. A. and Bennett, D. A. and Morris, M. C.},
  title   = {{Relation of DASH- and Mediterranean-like dietary patterns to cognitive decline in older persons}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000000884},
  pmid    = {25230996},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000884}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 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. 36 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.36 of the 58 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
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 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 13 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25230996)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 36 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 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 Prevention trials

Also tagged “controlled”

1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →