ArticleBMJ open2023
Estimating the prevalence of diagnosed Alzheimer disease in England across deprivation groups using electronic health records: a clinical practice research datalink study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Translational potential of medicinal plants for Alzheimer's disease: integrated evidence from molecular mechanisms to preclinical and clinical findings.Natural products and bioprospecting · 2026Review
- Visual interpretation of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Associations between night/shift working and late-life brain health.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Incidence and Prevalence of Dementia: A 2015-2020 Population-Based Study in the Campania Region of Italy.Neuroepidemiology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEstimate the prevalence of diagnosed Alzheimer's disease (AD) and early Alzheimer's disease (eAD) overall and stratified by age, sex and deprivation and combinations thereof in England on 1 January 2020.
designCross-sectional.
settingPrimary care electronic health record data, the Clinical Practice Research database linked with secondary care data, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and patient-level deprivation data, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence per 100 000 of the population and corresponding 95% CIs for both diagnosed AD and eAD overall and stratified by covariates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the sensitivity of the population definition and look-back period.
resultsThere were 448 797 patients identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink that satisfied the study inclusion criteria and were eligible for HES and IMD linkage. For the main analysis of AD and eAD, 379 763 patients are eligible for inclusion in the denominator. This resulted in an estimated prevalence of diagnosed AD of 378.39 (95% CI, 359.36 to 398.44) per 100 000 and eAD of 292.81 (95% CI, 276.12 to 310.52) per 100 000. Prevalence estimates across main and sensitivity analyses for the entire AD study population were found to vary widely with estimates ranging from 137.48 (95% CI, 127.05 to 148.76) to 796.55 (95% CI, 768.77 to 825.33). There was significant variation in prevalence of diagnosed eAD when assessing the sensitivity with the look-back periods, as low as 120.54 (95% CI, 110.80 to 131.14) per 100 000, and as high as 519.01 (95% CI, 496.64 to 542.37) per 100 000.
conclusionsThe study found relatively consistent patterns of prevalence across both AD and eAD populations. Generally, the prevalence of diagnosed AD increased with age and increased with deprivation for each age category. Women had a higher prevalence than men. More granular levels of stratification reduced patient numbers and increased the uncertainty of point prevalence estimates. Despite this, the study found a relationship between deprivation and prevalence of AD.
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.