SynthesisMedicine2026
Prevalence of metabolic syndrome among patients with Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and Alzheimer disease (AD) has gained increasing attention in recent years, reflecting the growing recognition of metabolic factors in neurodegenerative conditions. The present study aims to estimate the prevalence of MetS in patients with AD.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. Observational studies reporting the prevalence of MetS among patients with AD and/or providing comparative data with control groups were included. Pooled prevalence and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed.
resultsNine studies were included. The pooled prevalence of MetS among patients with AD was 46.7% (95% CI: 28.0%-65.8%; I2 = 97.11%). In subgroup analysis by continent, the prevalence was 26.1% (95% CI: 11.1%-44.4%) in Asia (I2 = 84.42%) and 52.8% (95% CI: 25.2%-79.5%) in Europe (I2 = 97.05%), while the estimate from North America was 72.2% (95% CI: 62.5%-81.0%) based on a single study. The comparative analysis showed an odds ratio of 1.64 (95% CI: 0.75-3.57), with no statistically significant association between AD and MetS. Meta-regression identified glucose as significantly associated with MetS prevalence (β = 0.022; P = .021).
conclusionMetS was frequently observed among patients with AD; however, the pooled prevalence estimate should be interpreted cautiously because of substantial between-study heterogeneity. The comparative analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between AD and MetS. Further studies using standardized definitions and more homogeneous populations are needed to clarify this relationship and the sources of heterogeneity.
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.