Home › Research › Drug development
Statins and cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term cognitive effects
Swiger KJ, Manalac RJ, Blumenthal RS, Blaha MJ, Martin SS.. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2013-10-01
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Objective To evaluate the effect of statins on short-term cognitive function and the long-term incidence of dementia. Patients and methods A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register from their inception to April 25, 2013. Adults with no history of cognitive dysfunction treated with statins were included from high-quality randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies after formal bias assessment. Results Sixteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 11 in quantitative synthesis. Short-term trials did not show a consistent effect of statin therapy on cognitive end points. Digit Symbol Substitution Testing (a well-validated measure of cognitive function) was the most common short-term end point, with no significant differences in the mean change from baseline to follow-up between the statin and placebo groups (mean change, 1.65; 95% CI, -0.03 to 3.32; 296 total exposures in 3 trials). Long-term cognition studies included 23,443 patients with a mean exposure duration of 3 to 24.9 years. Three studies found no association between statin use and incident dementia, and 5 found a favorable effect. Pooled results revealed a 29% reduction in incident dementia in statin-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82). Conclusion In patients without baseline cognitive dysfunction, short-term data are most compatible with no adverse effect of statins on cognition, and long-term data may support a beneficial role for statins in the prevention of dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Swiger, K. J., Manalac, R. J., Blumenthal, R. S., Blaha, M. J., & Martin, S. S. (2013). Statins and cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term cognitive effects. Mayo Clinic proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.013
Vancouver
Swiger KJ, Manalac RJ, Blumenthal RS, Blaha MJ, Martin SS. Statins and cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term cognitive effects. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.013. PMID: 24095248.
BibTeX
@article{swiger2013-24095248,
author = {Swiger, K. J. and Manalac, R. J. and Blumenthal, R. S. and Blaha, M. J. and Martin, S. S.},
title = {{Statins and cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term cognitive effects}},
journal = {Mayo Clinic proceedings},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.013},
pmid = {24095248},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.013}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Sixteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 11 in quantitative synthesis.
- Digit Symbol Substitution Testing (a well-validated measure of cognitive function) was the most common short-term end point, with no significant differences in the mean change from baseline to follow-up between the statin and placebo groups (mean change, 1.65; 95% CI, -0.03 to 3.32; 296 total exposures in 3 trials).
- Pooled results revealed a 29% reduction in incident dementia in statin-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants23,443
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 (Mayo Clinic proceedings) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 23,443 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 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 24095248) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development
Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”
304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.