ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017
A Risk Factor Analysis of Cognitive Impairment in Elderly Patients with Chronic Diseases in a Chinese Population.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Risk factors associated with cognitive impairment in aged: Cross-sectional study].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Observational
- Clinical Values of Serum Uric Acid Levels in the Occurrence of Cognitive Impairment in Alcohol-Dependent Patients.Alpha psychiatry · 2023Article
- The Relationship of Age-Related Hearing Loss with Cognitive Decline and Dementia in a Sinitic Language-Speaking Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Innovation in aging · 2023Review
- Visual Restoration after Cataract Surgery Promotes Functional and Structural Brain Recovery.EBioMedicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study analyzed the risk factors of cognitive impairment (CI) in elderly patients with chronic diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total of 385 elderly patients with chronic diseases were selected and assigned into CI and normal groups. The activities of daily living (ADL), global deterioration scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA), and mini nutritional assessment (MNA) were performed to analyze the differences between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was conducted for risk factors of CI in elderly patients with chronic diseases. RESULTS There were differences in age, education level, type 2 diabetes mellitus, multifocal cerebral infarction, hearing, and eyesight between CI and normal groups. Patients in the CI group showed more CD4+ cells, more admission times, and higher GDS scores than the normal group. Also, MMSE and MoCA scores revealed differences in total score, directive force, attention and calculating ability, language, delayed memory, reading comprehension, writing, and visual-spatial ability between the 2 groups. The number of B and CD8+ cells, ADL, and MNA scores were protective factors, while cerebral infarction history, number of CD4+ cells, admission times, GDS score, and age were risk factors of CI in elderly patients with chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS Our study provides evidence that cerebral infarction history, number of CD4+ cells, admission times, GDS score, and age are risk factors of CI in elderly patients with chronic diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.