Home › Research › Drug development
Statins, cognition, and dementia—systematic review and methodological commentary
Power MC, Weuve J, Sharrett AR, Blacker D, Gottesman RF.. Nature reviews. Neurology, 2015-03-24
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Plain-language summary
Firm conclusions about whether mid-life or long-term statin use has an impact on cognitive decline and dementia remain elusive. Here, our objective was to systematically review, synthesize and critique the epidemiological literature that examines the relationship between statin use and cognition, so as to assess the current state of knowledge, identify gaps in our understanding, and make recommendations for future research. We summarize the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, grouped according to study design. We discuss the methods for each, and consider likely sources of bias, such as reverse causation and confounding. Although observational studies that considered statin use at or near the time of dementia diagnosis suggest a protective effect of statins, these findings could be attributable to reverse causation. RCTs and well-conducted observational studies of baseline statin use and subsequent cognition over several years of follow-up do not support a causal preventative effect of late-life statin use on cognitive decline or dementia. Given that much of the human research on statins and cognition in the future will be observational, careful study design and analysis will be essential.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Power, M. C., Weuve, J., Sharrett, A. R., Blacker, D., & Gottesman, R. F. (2015). Statins, cognition, and dementia—systematic review and methodological commentary. Nature reviews. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.35
Vancouver
Power MC, Weuve J, Sharrett AR, Blacker D, Gottesman RF. Statins, cognition, and dementia—systematic review and methodological commentary. Nature reviews. Neurology. 2015. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.35. PMID: 25799928.
BibTeX
@article{power2015-25799928,
author = {Power, M. C. and Weuve, J. and Sharrett, A. R. and Blacker, D. and Gottesman, R. F.},
title = {{Statins, cognition, and dementia—systematic review and methodological commentary}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Neurology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1038/nrneurol.2015.35},
pmid = {25799928},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.35}
}
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
- Although observational studies that considered statin use at or near the time of dementia diagnosis suggest a protective effect of statins, these findings could be attributable to reverse causation.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nature reviews. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 2015 — 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) |
| 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 25799928) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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 from nearby years
Also tagged “methodological”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “methodological”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.