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 53 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Objectives To determine whether vision impairment is independently associated cross-sectionally and longitudinally with dementia. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Participants Individuals aged 50 and older MEASUREMENTS: Cross-sectional association between self-rated vision (poor or blind, moderate, normal) and dementia was analyzed, adjusting for potential confounders (sex, wealth, education, cardiovascular risk factors) using multivariable logistic regression. We also modelled the adjusted longitudinal association between vision impairment and dementia over an average of 11 years of follow-up using Cox proportional hazards regression for individuals aged 50 to 69 and those aged 70 and older. Results After adjustment for confounders, participants who rated their vision as moderate were 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.4-3.1) times as likely as those with normal vision to have dementia, and those who rated their vision as poor were 4.0 (95% CI=2.6-6.1) times as likely. Longitudinally, individuals aged 50 to 69 who rated their vision as moderate (1.8, 95% CI=1.0-3.0) or poor (3.6, 95% CI=1.1-11.8) were at greater risk of developing dementia than those who rated their vision as normal. There was no significant difference in risk in those aged 70 and older. Conclusion Our study confirms and extends findings from other countries, demonstrating cross-sectional associations between moderate and poor self-rated vision and dementia in England in all participants aged 50 and older and longitudinally over an 11-year period in those aged 50 to 69. These results help establish vision loss as a risk factor for dementia, although it is unclear why. Research is needed to determine whether screening and treatment for vision loss may slow cognitive decline.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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 0 of 2. 31 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.31 of the 58 points we could judge = 53 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 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)
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 30098017)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 31 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Davies-Kershaw, H. R., Hackett, R. A., Cadar, D., Herbert, A., Orrell, M., & Steptoe, A. (2018). Vision Impairment and Risk of Dementia: Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15456

Vancouver

Davies-Kershaw HR, Hackett RA, Cadar D, Herbert A, Orrell M, Steptoe A. Vision Impairment and Risk of Dementia: Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018. doi:10.1111/jgs.15456. PMID: 30098017.

BibTeX

@article{davieskershaw2018-30098017,
  author  = {Davies-Kershaw, H. R. and Hackett, R. A. and Cadar, D. and Herbert, A. and Orrell, M. and Steptoe, A.},
  title   = {{Vision Impairment and Risk of Dementia: Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.15456},
  pmid    = {30098017},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15456}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →