Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. As a result, routine medicine becomes an impractical and unhelpful endeavor under these constraints which I do not consider ethical at all. He prescribes it most often for patients under age 65 years, which suggests that he is not using the drug for its sole FDA-approved indication, Alzheimer-type dementia. In these cases, we are correct to draw from our knowledge of analogous conditions that often have a greater research base simply due to a more economically favorable population for pharmaceutical and device We have a to of the information about the we and a to new treatment with our We have a to inform our patients and their about our level of in the we and we should encourage their in treatment effects versus effects. should that for more and evidence-based and more severe without standard can greater risk under informed that this of and individual medical practice an ethical a When will all the physicians the to back for a will us on of drugs for uses other than the for which the FDA has approved their use use of a drug to treat a than the one for which it was or to treat a such as using a drug for children when it was only in is widespread and for at of all prescriptions 1. not all such uses the the ethical by the routine off-label use of a drug by a single physician when such use has been as safe and through as the general standard of care for the in I on this of off-label use rather than on a physician who uses a drug off as a of treating a particular patient who has not responded to other because it was the in The Washington Post article in which I was quoted 2. also are by the and by the even more in which physicians prescribe a drug for an off-label use that has been through published in or that has of the of most or all physicians without a example, in the latter physicians may be prescribing the drug without that they are using it in a that has not been and approved by the FDA or without really the implications of prescribing on and off off-label use of drugs is questions as to whether this is good as of the law is that is to that a that its drug is safe and for the use that will be on its a sometimes the Once a drug has been for and the FDA has no to how physicians use whether in with the or a physician with the to use a drug in a when he or she has to believe that doing so

Key findings

Why it matters

This paper discusses ethical issues of prescribing drugs off-label, including a drug prescribed for Alzheimer-type dementia outside its approved use. It does not report testing a treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 49/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited 2 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 2 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 3 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 47 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 49 of 100. Total 49 of 100.47 of the 96 points we could judge = 49 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 47 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 49 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PM&R)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 PM&R: journal h-index 116 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
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 1 / 5 2013 — within 20 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)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited 2 / 7 Cited 11 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.7 citations a year over 15 year(s) since 2013
Impact for its field and year 2 / 6 Cited 2.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Johns Hopkins University: institution h-index 2,306 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 3 / 3 OpenAlex lists 15 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24160301)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 47 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 49 out of 100.
Total 49 / 100 —

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

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

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

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.

APA 7th

Vox, F., Capron, A. M., Kraus, M. F., Alexander, G. C., & Kirschner, K. L. (2013). Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use. PM&R. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.08.601

Vancouver

Vox F, Capron AM, Kraus MF, Alexander GC, Kirschner KL. Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use. PM&R. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.08.601. PMID: 24160301.

BibTeX

@article{vox2013-24160301,
  author  = {Vox, Ford and Capron, Alexander Morgan and Kraus, Marilyn F. and Alexander, G. Caleb and Kirschner, Kristi L.},
  title   = {{Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use}},
  journal = {PM\&R},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.08.601},
  pmid    = {24160301},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.08.601}
}

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Also in Health systems and care delivery

172 studies in the library are filed under Health systems and care delivery with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Health systems and care delivery hub.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →