scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Systematic evaluation of the associations between environmental risk factors and dementia: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

TL;DR: Dementia is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disease, whose etiology results from a complex interplay between environmental and genetic factors.
Abstract: Introduction Dementia is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disease, whose etiology results from a complex interplay between environmental and genetic factors. Methods We searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between nongenetic factors and dementia. We estimated the summary effect size using random-effects and fixed-effects model, the 95% CI, and the 95% prediction interval. We assessed the between-study heterogeneity (I-square), evidence of small-study effects, and excess significance. Results A total of 76 unique associations were examined. By applying standardized criteria, seven associations presented convincing evidence. These associations pertained to benzodiazepines use, depression at any age, late-life depression, and frequency of social contacts for all types of dementia; late-life depression for Alzheimer's disease; and type 2 diabetes mellitus for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Discussion Several risk factors present substantial evidence for association with dementia and should be assessed as potential targets for interventions, but these associations may not necessarily be causal.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
28 Feb 2017-BMJ
TL;DR: Obesity is becoming one of the biggest problems in public health; evidence on the strength of the associated risks may allow finer selection of those at higher risk of cancer, who could be targeted for personalised prevention strategies.
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the strength and validity of the evidence for the association between adiposity and risk of developing or dying from cancer. Design Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and manual screening of retrieved references. Eligibility criteria Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies that evaluated the association between indices of adiposity and risk of developing or dying from cancer. Data synthesis Primary analysis focused on cohort studies exploring associations for continuous measures of adiposity. The evidence was graded into strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak after applying criteria that included the statistical significance of the random effects summary estimate and of the largest study in a meta-analysis, the number of cancer cases, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, excess significance bias, and sensitivity analysis with credibility ceilings. Results 204 meta-analyses investigated associations between seven indices of adiposity and developing or dying from 36 primary cancers and their subtypes. Of the 95 meta-analyses that included cohort studies and used a continuous scale to measure adiposity, only 12 (13%) associations for nine cancers were supported by strong evidence. An increase in body mass index was associated with a higher risk of developing oesophageal adenocarcinoma; colon and rectal cancer in men; biliary tract system and pancreatic cancer; endometrial cancer in premenopausal women; kidney cancer; and multiple myeloma. Weight gain and waist to hip circumference ratio were associated with higher risks of postmenopausal breast cancer in women who have never used hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer, respectively. The increase in the risk of developing cancer for every 5 kg/m 2 increase in body mass index ranged from 9% (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.13) for rectal cancer among men to 56% (1.56, 1.34 to 1.81) for biliary tract system cancer. The risk of postmenopausal breast cancer among women who have never used HRT increased by 11% for each 5 kg of weight gain in adulthood (1.11, 1.09 to 1.13), and the risk of endometrial cancer increased by 21% for each 0.1 increase in waist to hip ratio (1.21, 1.13 to 1.29). Five additional associations were supported by strong evidence when categorical measures of adiposity were included: weight gain with colorectal cancer; body mass index with gallbladder, gastric cardia, and ovarian cancer; and multiple myeloma mortality. Conclusions Although the association of adiposity with cancer risk has been extensively studied, associations for only 11 cancers (oesophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney) were supported by strong evidence. Other associations could be genuine, but substantial uncertainty remains. Obesity is becoming one of the biggest problems in public health; evidence on the strength of the associated risks may allow finer selection of those at higher risk of cancer, who could be targeted for personalised prevention strategies.

525 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Several factors are found to be associated with psychotic disorders with different levels of evidence and represent a starting point for further etiopathological research and for the improvement of the prediction of psychosis.

363 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
20 Mar 2018-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: A healthy lifestyle pattern could lead to decreased risk for T2DM, and future randomized clinical trials should focus on identifying efficient strategies to modify harmful daily habits and predisposing dietary patterns.
Abstract: Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic associated with increased health expenditure, and low quality of life. Many non-genetic risk factors have been suggested, but their overall epidemiological credibility has not been assessed. Methods We searched PubMed to capture all meta-analyses and Mendelian randomization studies for risk factors of T2DM. For each association, we estimated the summary effect size, its 95% confidence and prediction interval, and the I2 metric. We examined the presence of small-study effects and excess significance bias. We assessed the epidemiological credibility through a set of predefined criteria. Results We captured 86 eligible papers (142 associations) covering a wide range of biomarkers, medical conditions, and dietary, lifestyle, environmental and psychosocial factors. Adiposity, low hip circumference, serum biomarkers (increased level of alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, uric acid and C-reactive protein, and decreased level of adiponectin and vitamin D), an unhealthy dietary pattern (increased consumption of processed meat and sugar-sweetened beverages, decreased intake of whole grains, coffee and heme iron, and low adherence to a healthy dietary pattern), low level of education and conscientiousness, decreased physical activity, high sedentary time and duration of television watching, low alcohol drinking, smoking, air pollution, and some medical conditions (high systolic blood pressure, late menarche age, gestational diabetes, metabolic syndrome, preterm birth) presented robust evidence for increased risk of T2DM. Conclusions A healthy lifestyle pattern could lead to decreased risk for T2DM. Future randomized clinical trials should focus on identifying efficient strategies to modify harmful daily habits and predisposing dietary patterns.

360 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A critical educational review of published umbrella reviews is presented, focusing on the essential practical steps required to produce robust umbrella reviews in the medical field, and 10 key points to consider for conducting robust umbrella Reviews are discussed.
Abstract: Objective Evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a rigorous and transparent knowledge base for translating clinical research into decisions, and thus they represent the basic unit of knowledge in medicine. Umbrella reviews are reviews of previously published systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Therefore, they represent one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis currently available, and are becoming increasingly influential in biomedical literature. However, practical guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews is relatively limited. Methods We present a critical educational review of published umbrella reviews, focusing on the essential practical steps required to produce robust umbrella reviews in the medical field. Results The current manuscript discusses 10 key points to consider for conducting robust umbrella reviews. The points are: ensure that the umbrella review is really needed, prespecify the protocol, clearly define the variables of interest, estimate a common effect size, report the heterogeneity and potential biases, perform a stratification of the evidence, conduct sensitivity analyses, report transparent results, use appropriate software and acknowledge the limitations. We illustrate these points through recent examples from umbrella reviews and suggest specific practical recommendations. Conclusions The current manuscript provides a practical guidance for conducting umbrella reviews in medical areas. Researchers, clinicians and policy makers might use the key points illustrated here to inform the planning, conduction and reporting of umbrella reviews in medicine.

252 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the 12 years since the publication of the first Consensus Paper of the WFSBP on biomarkers of neurodegenerative dementias, enormous advancement has taken place in the field, and the Task Force takes the opportunity to extend and update the original paper.
Abstract: In the 12 years since the publication of the first Consensus Paper of the WFSBP on biomarkers of neurodegenerative dementias, enormous advancement has taken place in the field, and the Task Force t...

226 citations


Cites background from "Systematic evaluation of the associ..."

  • ...Cardiovascular disease and other vascular risk factors such as smoking and diabetes may predispose to VaD as well (Hofman et al. 1997; Luchsinger et al. 2005; Bellou et al. 2016)....

    [...]

  • ...…2005), presence of the APOE e4 allele (Morris et al. 2010), female sex (Brookmeyer et al. 1998), low educational level (Ott et al. 1995; Evans et al. 1997), cardiovascular disease (Hofman et al. 1997; Luchsinger et al. 2005; Bellou et al. 2016) and diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) (Carlsson 2010)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
13 Sep 1997-BMJ
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

37,989 citations


"Systematic evaluation of the associ..." refers result in this paper

  • ...size compared with larger studies) [24] using the Egger’s regression asymmetry test [25]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper examines eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of a certain treatment for a specified medical condition and suggests a simple noniterative procedure for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.

33,234 citations


"Systematic evaluation of the associ..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...Specifically, for each meta-analysis, we estimated the summary effect size and its 95% CI using both fixed-effects and random-effects models [18,19]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The criteria proposed are intended to serve as a guide for the diagnosis of probable, possible, and definite Alzheimer's disease; these criteria will be revised as more definitive information becomes available.
Abstract: Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease include insidious onset and progressive impairment of memory and other cognitive functions. There are no motor, sensory, or coordination deficits early in the disease. The diagnosis cannot be determined by laboratory tests. These tests are important primarily in identifying other possible causes of dementia that must be excluded before the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease may be made with confidence. Neuropsychological tests provide confirmatory evidence of the diagnosis of dementia and help to assess the course and response to therapy. The criteria proposed are intended to serve as a guide for the diagnosis of probable, possible, and definite Alzheimer's disease; these criteria will be revised as more definitive information become available.

26,847 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Abstract: The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.

25,460 citations


"Systematic evaluation of the associ..." refers background in this paper

  • ...I(2) ranges between 0% and 100% and quantifies the variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error [23]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.

13,710 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...The recently revised criteria by the National Institute of Aging and Alzheimer’s Association workgroup have differentiated all-cause dementia from AD, with (as exclusion criterion) the presence of any clinical or other evidence of concomitant cerebrovascular pathology, any other known form of dementia or any concurrent condition or medication potentially affecting cognition [75]....

    [...]