↓ Skip to main content

Statins for the prevention of dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
151 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
316 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statins for the prevention of dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003160.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernadette McGuinness, David Craig, Roger Bullock, Peter Passmore

Abstract

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and then updated in 2009. Vascular risk factors including high cholesterol levels increase the risk of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and of vascular dementia. Some observational studies have suggested an association between statin use and lowered incidence of dementia. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins for the prevention of dementia in people at risk of dementia due to their age and to determine whether the efficacy and safety of statins for this purpose depends on cholesterol level, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype or cognitive level. We searched ALOIS (the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal on 11 November 2015. We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials in which statins were administered for at least 12 months to people at risk of dementia. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. All participants had a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease. The studies used different statins (simvastatin and pravastatin). Mean follow-up was 3.2 years in one study and five years in one study. The risk of bias was low. Only one study reported on the incidence of dementia (20,536 participants, 31 cases in each group; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.65, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). Both studies assessed cognitive function, but at different times using different scales, so we judged the results unsuitable for a meta-analysis. There were no differences between statin and placebo groups on five different cognitive tests (high quality evidence). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to non-fatal adverse events were less than 5% in both studies and there was no difference between statin and placebo groups in the risk of withdrawal due to adverse events (26,340 participants, 2 studies, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). There is good evidence that statins given in late life to people at risk of vascular disease do not prevent cognitive decline or dementia. Biologically, it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. However, indication bias may have been a factor in these studies and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative. There were limitations in the included studies involving the cognitive assessments used and the inclusion of participants at moderate to high vascular risk only.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 151 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 316 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 305 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 16%
Student > Master 46 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 14%
Student > Bachelor 37 12%
Unspecified 36 11%
Other 104 33%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 39%
Unspecified 52 16%
Psychology 38 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Other 61 19%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#137,665
of 13,855,072 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#292
of 10,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,713
of 363,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,855,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.