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.

36/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Statins have been widely used for the treatment of a variety of conditions beyond their original role in lowering cholesterol. Since statins have relatively few side effects, they have been recognized as useful medicine to ameliorate neurodegenerative disorders. Current studies on the applications of statins have demonstrated their neuroprotective and clinical significance among neurodegenerative diseases like cerebral ischemic stroke, vascular dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, though the neuroprotective mechanisms are not completely understood. This review will discuss recent development in the use of statins in slowing down the progression of these neurodegenerative diseases. It will summarize the potential mechanisms for statin-mediated neuroprotective effects in neurodegenerative diseases. In detail, this review discuss the roles of statins in lowering cholesterol, reducing reactive oxygen species, impairing β-amyloid production and serum apolipoprotein E levels, enhancing the levels of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and cerebral blood flow, and modulating cognitive related receptors and matrix metalloproteases. Finally, different alterations of various receptors in brain regions following statin treatment and their correlations with cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson's disease will also be reviewed, as well as the potential for therapy in ameliorating the progression of Parkinson's disease. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Interaction between repair, disease, & inflammation."

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

APA 7th

Wang, Q., Yan, J., Chen, X., Li, J., Yang, Y., Weng, J., et al. (2011). Statins: multiple neuroprotective mechanisms in neurodegenerative diseases. Experimental neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.04.006

Vancouver

Wang Q, Yan J, Chen X, Li J, Yang Y, Weng J, et al. Statins: multiple neuroprotective mechanisms in neurodegenerative diseases. Experimental neurology. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.04.006. PMID: 20406638.

BibTeX

@article{wang2011-20406638,
  author  = {Wang, Q. and Yan, J. and Chen, X. and Li, J. and Yang, Y. and Weng, J. and Deng, C. and Yenari, M. A.},
  title   = {{Statins: multiple neuroprotective mechanisms in neurodegenerative diseases}},
  journal = {Experimental neurology},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.04.006},
  pmid    = {20406638},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.04.006}
}

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 8 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 narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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 low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

Current studies on the applications of statins have demonstrated their neuroprotective and clinical significance among neurodegenerative diseases like cerebral ischemic stroke, vascular dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, though the neuroprotective mechanisms are not completely understood.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 36/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Experimental neurology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2011 — 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	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 20406638)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	21 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total	36 / 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 “multiple”

4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “multiple”; 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 →