Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28673273›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2017

Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology.

Ruth A Sibbett, Tom C Russ, Ian J Deary, John M Starr

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Neurodegenerative disease risk among former international rugby union players.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

4 authors.

Ruth A SibbettAlzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre, The University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK. Ruth.Sibbett@ed.ac.uk.
Tom C RussAlzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre, The University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK.
Ian J DearyAlzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre, The University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK.
John M StarrAlzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre, The University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research Council MR/K026992/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies investigating the risk factors for or causation of dementia must consider subjects prior to disease onset. To overcome the limitations of prospective studies and self-reported recall of information, the use of existing data is key. This review provides a narrative account of dementia ascertainment methods using sources of existing data.

methodsThe literature search was performed using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and Web of Science. Included articles reported a UK-based study of dementia in which cases were ascertained using existing data. Existing data included that which was routinely collected and that which was collected for previous research. After removing duplicates, abstracts were screened and the remaining articles were included for full-text review. A quality tool was used to evaluate the description of the ascertainment methodology.

resultsOf the 3545 abstracts screened, 360 articles were selected for full-text review. 47 articles were included for final consideration. Data sources for ascertainment included: death records, national datasets, research databases and hospital records among others. 36 articles used existing data alone for ascertainment, of which 27 used only a single data source. The most frequently used source was a research database. Quality scores ranged from 7/16 to 16/16. Quality scores were better for articles with dementia ascertainment as an outcome. Some papers performed validation studies of dementia ascertainment and most indicated that observed rates of dementia were lower than expected.

conclusionsWe identified a lack of consistency in dementia ascertainment methodology using existing data. With no data source identified as a "gold-standard", we suggest the use of multiple sources. Where possible, studies should access records with evidence to confirm the diagnosis. Studies should also calculate the dementia ascertainment rate for the population being studied to enable a comparison with an expected rate.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesData CollectionDementiaHumansLongitudinal StudiesProspective StudiesRisk FactorsDementiaResearch design and methodology

Identifiers

PMID28673273
PMCPMC5496178

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.