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.

59/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Background and purpose To determine the relationship between orthostatic hypotension (OH) and cognitive function in elderly subjects with memory complaints. Methods We studied the association between cognitive function and OH in 495 consecutive elderly outpatients attending a memory centre. Blood pressure (BP) was measured in a sitting and standing position. We examined cognitive function using a validated comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests, the cognitive efficiency profile (CEP) assessing the main cognitive areas. Subjects were classified into 4 categories according to their cognitive status: normal cognitive function, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD). Results In this population, 76±8 years of age (women 72%), 18% had normal cognitive function, 28% had MCI, 47% AD, and 7% VaD. Hypertension was observed in 74% of patients. OH was present in 14% of subjects (n=69). After adjustment for age, education level, systolic BP, diastolic BP, weight, and antihypertensive drugs, subjects with OH had worse cognitive function than those without OH (CEP score 50±24 vs 56±22, p<0.05). Moreover, a significant relationship was observed between OH and cognitive status (normal cognitive function, MCI, AD, or VaD). OH was present in 22% in VaD subjects, 15% in AD subjects, 12% in MCI subjects and 4% in normal control subjects (p<0.01 for overall test). Conclusion Our results showed an association between OH and cognitive impairment and emphasize the need for longitudinal studies designed to evaluate the nature of the relationship between OH and cognitive decline.

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

APA 7th

Mehrabian, S., Duron, E., Labouree, F., Rollot, F., Bune, A., Traykov, L., et al. (2010). Relationship between orthostatic hypotension and cognitive impairment in the elderly. Journal of the neurological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.056

Vancouver

Mehrabian S, Duron E, Labouree F, Rollot F, Bune A, Traykov L, et al. Relationship between orthostatic hypotension and cognitive impairment in the elderly. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.056. PMID: 20855089.

BibTeX

@article{mehrabian2010-20855089,
  author  = {Mehrabian, S. and Duron, E. and Labouree, F. and Rollot, F. and Bune, A. and Traykov, L. and Hanon, O.},
  title   = {{Relationship between orthostatic hypotension and cognitive impairment in the elderly}},
  journal = {Journal of the neurological sciences},
  year    = {2010},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.056},
  pmid    = {20855089},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2010.08.056}
}

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.

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 69 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

Results In this population, 76±8 years of age (women 72%), 18% had normal cognitive function, 28% had MCI, 47% AD, and 7% VaD.
Moreover, a significant relationship was observed between OH and cognitive status (normal cognitive function, MCI, AD, or VaD).
OH was present in 22% in VaD subjects, 15% in AD subjects, 12% in MCI subjects and 4% in normal control subjects (p<0.01 for overall test).
Conclusion Our results showed an association between OH and cognitive impairment and emphasize the need for longitudinal studies designed to evaluate the nature of the relationship between OH and cognitive decline.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants69
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the neurological sciences)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same 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	2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	69 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	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 20855089)
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.

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 “elderly”

4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “elderly”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →