ReviewCureus2026
A Systematic Literature Review of the Epidemiological, Diagnostic Workup, Humanistic, and Economic Burden of Alzheimer's Disease in Spain.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, affects over 700,000 individuals in Spain, with prevalence expected to rise due to population aging and improved diagnostic accuracy. Around 40,000 new cases are diagnosed annually, yet early-stage AD dementia remains underdiagnosed, limiting understanding of its full epidemiological, clinical, humanistic, and economic burden in Spain.
methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted on the burden of AD dementia in Spain, focusing on observational studies published from January 2019 to January 2024. Searches were performed in PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Medicina en Español (MEDES), and Índice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud (IBECS), following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
resultsTwenty-six publications were included, mainly addressing moderate-to-severe AD dementia, with limited evidence on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD. Commonly used tools included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Barthel Index, and Global Deterioration Scale (GDS). Neurologists were the primary clinicians involved in diagnosis (78.6%), though etiological diagnosis often lacked core AD biomarkers. Most caregivers were informal (mainly women), experiencing significant declines in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Non-healthcare costs accounted for 84.6%-90.7% of total expenditures, followed by direct healthcare (6.1%-10.0%) and social care costs (2.8%-4.6%). Indirect costs, mostly from reduced working hours, represented 0.5%-0.8%.
conclusionsThis study highlights the need to improve early diagnosis of AD dementia and to establish reliable health registries to measure its burden. The lack of evidence on practice heterogeneity hinders standardized care strategies. Addressing these gaps is essential to improve patient management, ensure equitable access to timely and accurate diagnosis, and facilitate access to emerging disease-modifying treatments for AD dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.