This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

50/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical trials

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Both groups were comparable in age (mean = 74 ± 7.2 years in the placebo group and 75 ± 7.4 in the intervention group) and in other demographics. Sixty-two participants were included in final analysis. Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Portion (ADAS-cog) was the primary outcome. By week 16, the mean ADAS-cog reduced from 24.48 to 20.30 (mean reduction = 4.18) for those in the treatment group, and from 18.98 to 17.81 (mean reduction = 1.18) for those in the placebo group. The difference in mean reduction of ADAS-cog was -3.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.910 to -1.100) in favor of the treatment group. Secondary outcomes of activities of daily living and quality of life measures also showed significant difference. In the perfusion scan analysis, the difference in the change in cerebral blood flow (t-scores) pre- and post-treatment between the intervention group (n = 7) and the placebo group (n = 11) was statistically significant (P < 0.001). In this randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, we demonstrated significant differences in improvement in cognitive function and activities of daily living. The clinical improvement is corroborated with improvement in cerebral perfusion in a subset of participants.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Liu, J., Chang, D., Cordato, D., Lee, K., Dixson, H., Bensoussan, A., et al. (2022). A pilot randomized controlled trial of WeiNaoKang (SaiLuoTong) in treating vascular dementia. Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)). https://doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12230

Vancouver

Liu J, Chang D, Cordato D, Lee K, Dixson H, Bensoussan A, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of WeiNaoKang (SaiLuoTong) in treating vascular dementia. Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)). 2022. doi:10.1002/agm2.12230. PMID: 36606270.

BibTeX

@article{liu2022-36606270,
  author  = {Liu, Junguang and Chang, Dennis and Cordato, Dennis and Lee, Kien and Dixson, Hugh and Bensoussan, Alan and Chan, Daniel Kam Yin},
  title   = {{A pilot randomized controlled trial of WeiNaoKang (SaiLuoTong) in treating vascular dementia}},
  journal = {Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W))},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1002/agm2.12230},
  pmid    = {36606270},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12230}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Both groups were comparable in age (mean = 74 ± 7.2 years in the placebo group and 75 ± 7.4 in the intervention group) and in other demographics.
Sixty-two participants were included in final analysis.
Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Portion (ADAS-cog) was the primary outcome.
By week 16, the mean ADAS-cog reduced from 24.48 to 20.30 (mean reduction = 4.18) for those in the treatment group, and from 18.98 to 17.81 (mean reduction = 1.18) for those in the placebo group.
The difference in mean reduction of ADAS-cog was -3.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.910 to -1.100) in favor of the treatment group.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 50/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)))
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36606270)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	28 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total	50 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Clinical trials from nearby years

Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”

306 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 306 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Clinical trials

See all studies in Clinical trials →