↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis.

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, September 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
325 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis.
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, September 2003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krista L Lanctôt, Nathan Herrmann, Kenneth K Yau, Lyla R Khan, Barbara A Liu, Maysoon M LouLou, Thomas R Einarson

Abstract

Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are the only drugs marketed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Despite numerous randomized controlled trials, the efficacy and safety of this group of medications has not been quantified. Our objective was to quantitatively summarize data on the efficacy and safety of ChEIs in Alzheimer's disease in a format useful to clinicians. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials of currently marketed ChEIs (donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine), used in therapeutic doses for at least 12 weeks, from which a cognitive outcome was reported. Studies were identified through 3 electronic databases searched to May 2002, pharmaceutical companies and journals. We extracted the proportions of subjects who responded, experienced adverse events, discontinued treatment for any reason or discontinued treatment because of adverse events. In the 16 identified trials that met the inclusion criteria, 5159 patients were treated with a ChEI and 2795 received a placebo. The pooled mean proportion of global responders to ChEI treatment in excess of that for placebo treatment was 9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 6%-12%). The rates of adverse events, dropout for any reason and dropout because of adverse events were also higher among the patients receiving ChEI treatment than among those receiving placebo, the excess proportions being 8% (95% CI 5%-11%), 8% (95% CI 5%-11%) and 7% (95% CI 3%-10%), respectively. The numbers needed to treat for 1 additional patient to benefit were 7 (95% CI 6-9) for stabilization or better, 12 (95% CI 9-16) for minimal improvement or better and 42 (95% CI 26-114) for marked improvement; the number needed to treat for 1 additional patient to experience an adverse event was 12 (95% CI 10-18). Treatment with ChEIs results in a modest but significant therapeutic effect and modestly but significantly higher rates of adverse events and discontinuation of treatment. The numbers needed to treat to benefit 1 additional patient are small.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 206 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 14%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 38 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 31%
Psychology 28 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 52 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,374,580
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#3,381
of 9,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,207
of 46,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 46,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.