Home › Research › Digital health tools
Systematic Review of Population-Based Studies of Prevalence and Incidence of Aging-Associated Neurodegenerative Diseases in Russia
Artemiy O, Irina G, Anton B.. medRxiv, 2026-04-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Aim To systematically review all population-based studies reporting the prevalence or incidence of neurodegenerative diseases among adults aged 50 and older in Russia. Subject and Methods We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, and eLibrary from inception to January 2025. The search included peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, and citation checking. Cross-sectional and cohort studies were eligible if they reported population-based prevalence estimates of dementia, cognitive impairment, or Parkinson’s disease in community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older in Russia. Studies performed in healthcare settings and insitutionalized populations were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB-PrevMH tool. For studies based on cognitive screening tools, dementia prevalence was adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity. Meta-analysis of available prevalence and incidence estimates was performed using random– and fixed-effects models for proportions, with pooling stratified by age group and assessment method. Results A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. Diagnostic methods varied, including expert evaluation, cognitive screening instruments (e.g., MMSE, Mini-Cog), and administrative data. Prevalence estimates for dementia ranged from 0.5% to 81.6%, with the lowest values derived from administrative data and the highest from Mini-Cog screening among adults aged 85 and older. Cognitive dysfunction was reported in 12 studies, with prevalence estimates ranging from 3.1% (MMSE<24, age 55–74) to 81.5% (Mini-Cog, age 85 and older). Nine studies reported the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease, ranging from 0.017% to 0.29% in administrative data, and 0.31% in the only study using neurologist assessments. Conclusion The prevalence of dementia and Parkinson’s disease in Russia varies widely depending on diagnostic method, age group, and study design. Most studies lacked representative sampling and used non-standardised diagnostic criteria. These findings underscore the importance of population-based epidemiological research in supporting public health planning and policy development within the Russian context.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Artemiy, O., Irina, G., & Anton, B. (2026). Systematic Review of Population-Based Studies of Prevalence and Incidence of Aging-Associated Neurodegenerative Diseases in Russia. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.03.26350047
Vancouver
Artemiy O, Irina G, Anton B. Systematic Review of Population-Based Studies of Prevalence and Incidence of Aging-Associated Neurodegenerative Diseases in Russia. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.04.03.26350047.
BibTeX
@article{artemiy2026-62dccad8,
author = {Artemiy, O. and Irina, G. and Anton, B.},
title = {{Systematic Review of Population-Based Studies of Prevalence and Incidence of Aging-Associated Neurodegenerative Diseases in Russia}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.04.03.26350047},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.04.03.26350047}
}
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 A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria.
- These findings underscore the importance of population-based epidemiological research in supporting public health planning and policy development within the Russian context.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants20
- Effect size0.5% to 81.6%; 3.1%; 81.5%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 56 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. We have no data on 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 35 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 56 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 20 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 35 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 56 out of 100. |
| Total | 56 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Digital health tools
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.