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.

70/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Brain tissue and pathology

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The modern era of drug development for Alzheimer's disease began with the proposal of the cholinergic hypothesis of memory impairment and the 1984 research criteria for Alzheimer's disease. Since then, despite the evaluation of numerous potential treatments in clinical trials, only four cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have shown sufficient safety and efficacy to allow marketing approval at an international level. Although this is probably because the other drugs tested were ineffective, inadequate clinical development methods have also been blamed for the failures.

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

APA 7th

Schneider, L. S., Mangialasche, F., Andreasen, N., Feldman, H., Giacobini, E., Jones, R., et al. (2014). Clinical trials and late-stage drug development for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal from 1984 to 2014. Journal of internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12191

Vancouver

Schneider LS, Mangialasche F, Andreasen N, Feldman H, Giacobini E, Jones R, et al. Clinical trials and late-stage drug development for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal from 1984 to 2014. Journal of internal medicine. 2014. doi:10.1111/joim.12191. PMID: 24605808.

BibTeX

@article{schneider2014-24605808,
  author  = {Schneider, L. S. and Mangialasche, F. and Andreasen, N. and Feldman, H. and Giacobini, E. and Jones, R. and Mantua, V. and Mecocci, P. and others},
  title   = {{Clinical trials and late-stage drug development for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal from 1984 to 2014}},
  journal = {Journal of internal medicine},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1111/joim.12191},
  pmid    = {24605808},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12191}
}

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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
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

Since then, despite the evaluation of numerous potential treatments in clinical trials, only four cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have shown sufficient safety and efficacy to allow marketing approval at an international level.
Although this is probably because the other drugs tested were ineffective, inadequate clinical development methods have also been blamed for the failures.
Here, we review the development of treatments for Alzheimer's disease during the past 30 years, considering the drugs, potential targets, late-stage clinical trials, development methods, emerging use of biomarkers and evolution of regulatory considerations in order to summarize advances and anticipate future developments.
We have considered late-stage Alzheimer's disease drug development from 1984 to 2013, including individual clinical trials, systematic and qualitative reviews, meta-analyses, methods, commentaries, position papers and guidelines.

Why it matters

This review of 30 years of Alzheimer's drug development found that only four cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have shown sufficient safety and efficacy for marketing approval. The other drugs tested were probably ineffective, though inadequate clinical development methods have also been blamed for the failures.

Study details

Study designmeta-analysis
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 70/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of internal medicine)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Journal of Internal Medicine: journal h-index 237 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	12 / 12	A meta-analysis pooling many studies
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	2014 — 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	6 / 7	Cited 649 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	46.4 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014
Impact for its field and year	6 / 6	Cited 44.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 21 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 96 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Miia Kivipelto: h-index 107 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Southern California: institution h-index 1,521 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 12 institution(s) in 7 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24605808)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	70 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 61.

Later studies that cite this one

21 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Brain tissue and pathology from nearby years

Also in Brain tissue and pathology

124 studies in the library are filed under Brain tissue and pathology with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Brain tissue and pathology hub.

Similar studies

More on Brain tissue and pathology

See all studies in Brain tissue and pathology →