ReviewHypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979)2024
Ascertainment and Statistical Issues for Randomized Trials of Cardiovascular Interventions for Cognitive Impairment and Dementia.
Review in Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood pressure and the brain: the conundrum of hypertension and dementia.Cardiovascular research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There has been considerable progress in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, reducing the population burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recently, some randomized trials, including the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), have suggested that improvements in cardiovascular risk factors may also slow cognitive decline and reduce the eventual development of dementia. Unfortunately, the randomized trial template that has been used repeatedly to successfully demonstrate reductions in major adverse cardiac events faces several design and analytic obstacles when applied in the context of cognitive decline and dementia. Here, we review these obstacles, motivated by SPRINT and the context of selecting an appropriate cognitive end point for future preventive randomized trials. A few options are available, spanning neuropsychological test scores or composites reflecting specific domains of cognitive function, adjudicated cognitive impairment, or potentially physiological biomarkers. This choice entails considerations around statistical power, modes of ascertainment, the clinical relevance of treatment effects, a myriad of statistical issues (interval censoring, missing data, the competing risk of death, practice effects, etc), as well as ethical considerations around equipoise. Collectively, these considerations indicate that trials aiming to mitigate the cardiovascular contribution to cognitive decline and dementia will generally need to be large, inclusive of a wide age range of older adults, and with multiple years of follow-up.
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.