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 78 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Dementia prevalence is a global public health concern. Adherence towards a healthy dietary pattern (DP) may reduce the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. This narrative systematic review aimed to synthesise prospective and intervention study data to evaluate the impact of a -posteriori and a -priori derived DPs on cognitive ageing, from cognitive decline to incident dementia. Ninety-three studies were included: 83 prospective studies and 10 randomised controlled trials (RCT). Most prospective studies (77%) examined a -priori DPs, with the Mediterranean diet examined most frequently. A total of 52% of prospective and 50% of RCTs reported a protective relationship between 'healthy' DPs and global cognitive decline. Overall, 59% of prospective studies reported positive associations between healthy DPs and risk of cognitive disorder. Incident cognitive disorder was examined by only one intervention study (subgroup analysis) which reported a beneficial effect of a low-fat diet on risk of probable dementia in women. Unhealthy DPs were examined less frequently ( n = 17; 21%), with 41% of these studies reporting associations between adherence and poorer cognitive outcomes. Overall, there were mixed results for healthy and unhealthy DPs on cognition, likely due to between-study heterogeneity. Standardisation of diet exposure and cognitive outcome measurement would help to reduce this. Future research would benefit from investigating effects of culturally appropriate DPs on individual cognitive domains and incident cognitive disorders in diverse and high-risk populations.

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

APA 7th

Townsend, R. F., Logan, D., O'Neill, R. F., Prinelli, F., Woodside, J. V., & McEvoy, C. T. (2023). Whole Dietary Patterns, Cognitive Decline and Cognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review of Prospective and Intervention Studies. Nutrients. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020333

Vancouver

Townsend RF, Logan D, O'Neill RF, Prinelli F, Woodside JV, McEvoy CT. Whole Dietary Patterns, Cognitive Decline and Cognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review of Prospective and Intervention Studies. Nutrients. 2023. doi:10.3390/nu15020333. PMID: 36678204.

BibTeX

@article{townsend2023-36678204,
  author  = {Townsend, R. F. and Logan, D. and O'Neill, R. F. and Prinelli, F. and Woodside, J. V. and McEvoy, C. T.},
  title   = {{Whole Dietary Patterns, Cognitive Decline and Cognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review of Prospective and Intervention Studies}},
  journal = {Nutrients},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.3390/nu15020333},
  pmid    = {36678204},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020333}
}

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 78/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 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. 45 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 78 of 100. Total 78 of 100.45 of the 58 points we could judge = 78 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nutrients)
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
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 3 / 5 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 17 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36678204)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 45 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100.
Total 78 / 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 Prevention trials

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →