ArticleAge and ageing2026
How does diagnostic subtype affect the quality of primary care for people with dementia? A retrospective cohort study in 1490 English general practices.
Article in Age and ageing, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiagnostic subtype has been suggested as a determinant of inequity for people with dementia; its impact on primary care provision is underexplored. This study investigated the association between dementia subtype and likelihood of receiving guideline-consistent primary care.
methodRetrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum) database, 1.1.2006-30.06.2024. We examined potential inequity with eight dementia subtypes: Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body dementia (LBD), vascular, frontotemporal, unspecified, other and two mixed categories. Six outcomes were examined: care plan or medication review (both within 24 months of index) and four indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) (high anti-cholinergic burden drugs, z-drugs, benzodiazepines and anti-psychotics). Cox-regression models were used, adjusting for: age, sex, comorbidities, deprivation and ethnicity.
resultsA total of 571 663 people were included and 72.1% received a care plan; 79.4% received a medication review within 24 months. Compared to AD: people with mixed dementias were more likely to receive a care plan [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-1.32 for mixed including AD/LBD, HR 1.37, 1.32-1.43 for mixed non-AD/LBD]. All other subtypes were less likely to receive a care plan. Individuals with mixed AD/LBD (HR 1.28, 1.26-1.32), mixed non-AD/LBD (HR 1.35, 1.26-1.45), vascular (HR 1.05, CI 1.04-1.07), LBD (HR 1.02, 1.01-1.04) and unspecified (HR 1.02, 1.01-1.03) were more likely to receive medication reviews. Compared to AD, all other subtypes were more likely to experience PIP across all four indicators.
conclusionWe found greater likelihood of PIP in people with non-AD dementias, a novel finding. Further research is needed, especially with new AD drugs potentially widening disparities.
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.