4.1 Article

The association between diabetes and cognitive changes during aging

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 281-290

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2020.1802140

关键词

Diabetes; elderly; cognitive functions; decline; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Worldwide, we are observing a rising prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairments that often co-occur with the heightened incidence of non-communicable diseases in the elderly. It is suggested that type 2 diabetes and defects in glucose metabolism might predispose to poorer cognitive performances and more rapid decline in old age. Methods to address existing knowledge gaps in this area, we systematically reviewed the literature to identify whether patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and pre-diabetes are at a higher risk of poorer cognitive performance, and whether the risk (if any) might affect specific cognitive abilities. We concentrated the review on elderly individuals (65 years or older) at intake. In total, 3251 original articles were retrieved, of which 17 met our inclusion and quality control criteria, which comprised 12 structured questions used to define the articles. Results 11 of 17 studies found a statistically significant decline in cognition among individuals who had T2DM or pre-diabetes compared to their non-diabetic counterparts. The association between diabetes and cognitive decline was not always clear, and the extent of the cognitive tests used seemed to have the greatest effect on the results. Conclusion Focusing on a population age 65 years and over, we found insufficient evidence to support an association between pre-diabetes stages and mild cognitive impairment. However, there is consistent evidence to support diabetes as an independent risk factor for low cognitive ability in the elderly. Finally, we found insufficient evidence to support effect of T2DM on distinct cognitive ability due to the scarcity of comparable findings.

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

4.1
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