Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23280303›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2013

A commentary on studies presenting projections of the future prevalence of dementia.

Sam Norton, Fiona E Matthews, Carol Brayne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Leisure Activities,Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Preventing dementia by preventing stroke: The Berlin Manifesto.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sam NortonInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. sam.norton@kcl.ac.uk
Fiona E Matthews
Carol Brayne

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105292687
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation ageing over the first half of this century is likely to lead to dramatic increases in the prevalence of dementia. This will affect all regions of the world, but particularly developing regions. Dementia projections have been used extensively to support policy. It is therefore important these projections are as accurate as possible. DISCUSSION: In this paper we provide a commentary on studies projecting the future prevalence of dementia for the world or for individual continents. We identify some important limitations of the methods used in published projections and provide recommendations to improve the accuracy of future projections, and allow for the checking of the accuracy of the predictions. SUMMARY: Accurate projections of dementia incidence, at both the global and local level, are essential for healthcare planners.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchForecastingDementiaGlobal HealthGuidelines as TopicHumansPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID23280303
PMCPMC3547813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.