Home › Research › Treatments
Alterations in brain activation during cholinergic enhancement with rivastigmine in Alzheimer's disease
Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Van Meel CS, Scheltens P.. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2002-12-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Background Rivastigmine enhances cholinergic activity and has been shown in clinical trials to decrease the rate of deterioration in Alzheimer's disease. It remains unclear where in the brain it exerts its effect. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can be used to measure changes in brain function and relate these to cognition. Objectives To use fMRI to study brain activation with rivastigmine treatment. Methods The effect on brain activation of a single dose of rivastigmine was tested in seven patients with mild Alzheimer's disease using fMRI during face encoding, and in five patients during a parametric working memory task. Results During face encoding, rivastigmine increased bilateral activation in the fusiform gyrus. Brain activation was also enhanced in the prefrontal cortex in a simple working memory task. When working memory load was further increased, not only was increased activation seen, but in certain areas there was also decreased activation. Conclusions These findings link the previously observed increase in cognitive performance in Alzheimer's disease after treatment with a cholinesterase inhibitor to altered brain activation. Although the results cannot be generalised to the Alzheimer's disease population at large, they provide evidence that in mild Alzheimer's disease, rivastigmine enhances brain activation in the fusiform and frontal cortices. This is compatible with the concept of cholinergic circuitry.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rombouts, S. A., Barkhof, F., Van Meel, C. S., & Scheltens, P. (2002). Alterations in brain activation during cholinergic enhancement with rivastigmine in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.73.6.665
Vancouver
Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Van Meel CS, Scheltens P. Alterations in brain activation during cholinergic enhancement with rivastigmine in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2002. doi:10.1136/jnnp.73.6.665. PMID: 12438467.
BibTeX
@article{rombouts2002-12438467,
author = {Rombouts, S. A. and Barkhof, F. and Van Meel, C. S. and Scheltens, P.},
title = {{Alterations in brain activation during cholinergic enhancement with rivastigmine in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
year = {2002},
doi = {10.1136/jnnp.73.6.665},
pmid = {12438467},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.73.6.665}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results During face encoding, rivastigmine increased bilateral activation in the fusiform gyrus.
- Conclusions These findings link the previously observed increase in cognitive performance in Alzheimer's disease after treatment with a cholinesterase inhibitor to altered brain activation.
- Although the results cannot be generalised to the Alzheimer's disease population at large, they provide evidence that in mild Alzheimer's disease, rivastigmine enhances brain activation in the fusiform and frontal cortices.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2002 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 12438467) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “enhancement”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “enhancement”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.