ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Economic evaluations of strategies targeting pre-diagnosis dementia populations: A systematic review.
Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 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.
- Economic evaluations of strategies targeting pre-diagnosis dementia populations: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Review
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
This review aims to appraise and summarize the best available evidence from economic evaluations (EEs) of strategies targeting populations prior to a diagnosis of dementia. A comprehensive search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, EconLit, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and The NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Publications were dually screened and assessed against eligibility criteria, and reporting quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) framework. Seventeen full EEs met the inclusion criteria; all were conducted in high-income countries and covered strategies in identification (29%), risk reduction (65%), and other strategies (6%). The number of publications from 2016 to 2025 tripled compared to the preceding periods. Most risk-reduction strategies were cost-effective and exhibited high reporting quality. The average reporting quality, based on the CHEERS framework, was 72%, with a noticeable improvement observed in articles published after 2020. Overall, the findings suggest that most risk-reduction strategies may offer good value for money. However, evidence remains limited, specifically in low- and middle-income countries; therefore, additional EEs are needed to guide future investment in strategies targeting pre-diagnosis dementia populations.
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.