ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026
Community-based health-focused longitudinal aging studies in East and Southeast Asia: landscape and future directions.
Review in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Centering Asian voices in global aging research: strengthening data infrastructure in East and Southeast Asia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Longitudinal aging research in East and Southeast Asia: representativeness or depth?The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
East and Southeast Asia's (ESEA) rapidly aging population creates an urgent need for comprehensive health data to inform policies promoting healthy aging. However, a synthesis of the region's community-based longitudinal aging studies is lacking. We conducted a systematic search for community-based longitudinal aging studies in ESEA. Studies were included if they followed community-dwelling adults with a mean age of 50+ at baseline, had nationally representative samples or sampled from at least two geographic areas, were health focused, and offered English documentation. We identified 30 eligible studies across 10 countries, regions, or territories, mostly concentrated in Japan, Mainland China, Singapore, and South Korea. While recent studies incorporate biomarkers and performance measurements, significant gaps were found. No eligible studies exist for several countries (e.g., Myanmar, Cambodia, and Indonesia), physical frailty is rarely assessed, data access is inconsistent, and no multi-national studies were identified. Although data infrastructure for longitudinal aging studies exists in ESEA, there are critical gaps in geographic representation, measurement harmonization, and data access. Future efforts must enhance regional coordination, standardize core measures, and improve data-sharing mechanisms to promote and support healthy aging in ESEA.
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.