Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Although patients with dementia frequently experience neuropsychological symptoms (NPS) such as agitation, which profoundly impacts patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system, few studies have evaluated the associated burden of agitation or agitation-related symptoms in dementia. Methods This retrospective analysis of claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan® database (2012-2015) compared clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and costs among patients with dementia with behavioral disturbances (BD) versus patients with dementia without BD. Existing BD diagnosis codes 294.11 or 294.21 were used as a means to identify patients with agitation/agitation-related symptoms. Results From a starting sample of 6.4 million beneficiaries, 103,402 patients with dementia were identified, of whom 16,440 (16%) had BD during an average of 17 months of follow-up. Patients with BD had significantly more medical and psychiatric comorbidities and greater comedication use (i.e., antidementia drugs, antidepressants, and antipsychotics; all values, P < .0001) compared with patients without BD. A significantly greater number of hospitalizations, hospital days, outpatient hospital/clinic visits, number of skilled nursing visits, and number of patients with hospice visit were reported during follow-up in patients with BD compared with patients without BD (all values, P < 0.0001). Costs were also significantly higher among patients with BD versus those patients without BD ($42,284 vs. $32,640, respectively; P < 0.0001). Conclusions Patients with dementia with BD had a higher prevalence of comorbidities, greater use of comedications, and greater healthcare utilization and costs than patients with dementia without BD.

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

APA 7th

Aigbogun, M. S., Stellhorn, R., Hartry, A., Baker, R. A., & Fillit, H. (2019). Treatment patterns and burden of behavioral disturbances in patients with dementia in the United States: a claims database analysis. BMC neurology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1260-3

Vancouver

Aigbogun MS, Stellhorn R, Hartry A, Baker RA, Fillit H. Treatment patterns and burden of behavioral disturbances in patients with dementia in the United States: a claims database analysis. BMC neurology. 2019. doi:10.1186/s12883-019-1260-3. PMID: 30819136.

BibTeX

@article{aigbogun2019-30819136,
  author  = {Aigbogun, M. S. and Stellhorn, R. and Hartry, A. and Baker, R. A. and Fillit, H.},
  title   = {{Treatment patterns and burden of behavioral disturbances in patients with dementia in the United States: a claims database analysis}},
  journal = {BMC neurology},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12883-019-1260-3},
  pmid    = {30819136},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1260-3}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 57/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 33 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 57 of 100. Total 57 of 100.33 of the 58 points we could judge = 57 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC 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 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 103,402 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 No randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30819136)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 33 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100.
Total 57 / 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 End-of-life care

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →