↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Cognitive Enhancers for Treating Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Review and Network Metaanalysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
49 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
Title
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Cognitive Enhancers for Treating Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Review and Network Metaanalysis
Published in
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, September 2017
DOI 10.1111/jgs.15069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C. Tricco, Huda M. Ashoor, Charlene Soobiah, Patricia Rios, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Jemila S. Hamid, John D. Ivory, Paul A. Khan, Fatemeh Yazdi, Marco Ghassemi, Erik Blondal, Joanne M. Ho, Carmen H. Ng, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Sumit R. Majumdar, Laure Perrier, Sharon E. Straus

Abstract

To examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Systematic review and Bayesian network metaanalysis (NMA). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ageline (inception-March 2016). Individuals with AD in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and nonrandomized studies. Any combination of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts; abstracted data; and appraised risk of bias. Twenty thousand three hundred forty-three citations were screened, and 142 studies were included (110 RCTs, 21 non-RCTs, 11 cohort studies). NMA found that donepezil (Mini-Mental State Examination: mean difference (MD) = 1.39, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.53-2.24), donepezil+memantine (2.59, 95% CrI = 0.12-4.98), and transdermal rivastigmine (2.02, 95% CrI = 0.02-4.08) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive: MD = -3.29, 95% CrI = -4.57 to -1.99) and galantamine (MD = -2.13, 95% CrI = -3.91 to -0.27) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil+memantine (MD = -5.23, 95% CrI = -8.72 to -1.56) improved behavior more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (MD = -0.32, 95% CrI = -0.46 to -0.19), donepezil+memantine (MD = -0.57, 95% CrI = -0.95 to -0.21), oral rivastigmine (MD = -0.38, 95% CrI = -0.56 to -0.17), and galantamine (MD = -3.79, 95% CrI = -6.98 to -0.59) improved global status more than placebo. NMA found that galantamine decreased the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.36-0.87). No agent increased risk of serious adverse events, falls, or bradycardia. Some increased risk of headache (oral rivastigmine), diarrhea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil), nausea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine), and vomiting (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine). An exhaustive review of the literature involving 142 studies demonstrated that cognitive enhancers in general have minimal effects on cognition according to minimal clinically important difference and global ratings. The drugs appear safe, but this must be interpreted cautiously because trial participants may have less comorbidity and fewer adverse effects than those treated with these drugs in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 223 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Master 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Other 14 6%
Other 38 17%
Unknown 78 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 6%
Neuroscience 14 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 85 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#789,322
of 26,352,576 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
#685
of 8,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,857
of 333,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
#24
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,352,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 333,935 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.