4.5 Review

European studies on the prevalence of dementia in the elderly: time for a step towards a methodological consensus

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 28, 期 12, 页码 1211-1221

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.3948

关键词

dementia; prevalence; Europe; methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to discuss methodological limitations in studies on the prevalence of dementia across European countries with particular attention to post-EURODEM studies. MethodsTwo people independently focused on an iterative literature search for studies published in the years 2000-2012 using the following keywords: dementia', Alzheimer', incidence', prevalence' that were cross-linked with names of European countries. After that, the results obtained were compared and publications in English were included in a subsequent analysis. ResultsWe included 26 studies published in the years 2000-2012. The majority of epidemiological studies come from Spain and Italy. The past decade has not provided prevalence rates from a considerable number of countries. There is also a lack of nationwide surveys on the prevalence of dementia. Predominantly, epidemiological studies on the prevalence of dementia follow a two-stage approach that consists of a screening phase and a subsequent confirmation of dementia. However, several differences, particularly with regard to the neuropsychological instruments used, still exist and contribute to inconsistent prevalence rates. ConclusionsAlthough the EURODEM study was a milestone in the epidemiology of dementia in Europe and provided several future directions for research, methodological limitations are apparent in a number of European studies on the prevalence of dementia and require particular attention. In particular, a variety of diagnostic instruments requires unification for future studies. On the other hand, given the lack of epidemiological studies from a number of countries and the increasing prevalence of dementia, the need for population-based surveys should be emphasized. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据