4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

National estimates of the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease in the United States

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 61-73

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.11.007

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Dementia; Cognitive impairment; Prevalence; Population-based; Projection; Probability sampling

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [N01AG012106, N01AG002107, U01AG016976, U01AG009740, R01AG027010, R01AG011101] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01AG027010, R01 AG011101, U01 AG009740-10, U01 AG016976-09, U01 AG016976, R01AG011101, N01AG12106, U01AG009740, R01 AG027010, R01 AG011101-09, R01 AG027010-01, N01AG02107, U01 AG009740, U01AG016976] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several methods of estimating prevalence of dementia are presented in this article. For both Brookmeyer and the Chicago Health and Aging project (CHAP), the estimates of prevalence are derived statistically, forward calculating from incidence and survival figures. The choice of incidence rates on which to build the estimates may be critical. Brookmeyer used incidence rates from several published studies, whereas the CHAP investigators applied the incidence rates observed in their own cohort. The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) and the East Boston Senior Health Project (EBSHP) were sample surveys designed to ascertain the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. ADAMS obtained direct estimates by relying on probability sampling nationwide. EBSHP relied on projection of localized prevalence estimates to the national population. The sampling techniques of ADAMS and EBSHP were rather similar, whereas their disease definitions were not. By contrast, EBSPH and CHAP have similar disease definitions internally, but use different calculation techniques, and yet arrive at similar prevalence estimates, which are considerably greater than those obtained by either Brookmeyer or ADAMS. Choice of disease definition may play the larger role in explaining differences in observed prevalence between these studies. (C) 2011 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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