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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an operational definition for a cognitive decline in individuals with a greater risk of developing dementia. The amnestic subtype of MCI is of particular interest because these individuals most likely progress to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Currently hypothesised therapeutic approaches in MCI are mainly based on AD treatment strategies. Long term secondary prevention randomised clinical trials have been completed in amnestic MCI populations, encompassing agents with various mechanisms of action: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine), antioxidants (vitamin E), anti-inflammatories (rofecoxib), and nootropics (piracetam). The design of clinical trials in MCI is influenced by study objectives and definition of primary end points: time to clinical diagnosis of dementia, and AD in particular, or symptom progression. As none of the drugs previously shown to have clinical efficacy in AD trials or benefit in everyday practice have met the primary objectives of the respective trials, design of future clinical trials in MCI should be further developed particularly as regards the selection of more homogeneous samples at entry, optimal treatment duration, and multidimensional and reliable outcomes.

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

APA 7th

Jelic, V., Kivipelto, M., & Winblad, B. (2006). Clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment: lessons for the future. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.072926

Vancouver

Jelic V, Kivipelto M, Winblad B. Clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment: lessons for the future. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2006. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.072926. PMID: 16306154.

BibTeX

@article{jelic2006-16306154,
  author  = {Jelic, V. and Kivipelto, M. and Winblad, B.},
  title   = {{Clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment: lessons for the future}},
  journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1136/jnnp.2005.072926},
  pmid    = {16306154},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.072926}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
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

The amnestic subtype of MCI is of particular interest because these individuals most likely progress to Alzheimer's disease (AD).
Currently hypothesised therapeutic approaches in MCI are mainly based on AD treatment strategies.
Long term secondary prevention randomised clinical trials have been completed in amnestic MCI populations, encompassing agents with various mechanisms of action: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine), antioxidants (vitamin E), anti-inflammatories (rofecoxib), and nootropics (piracetam).
The design of clinical trials in MCI is influenced by study objectives and definition of primary end points: time to clinical diagnosis of dementia, and AD in particular, or symptom progression.
As none of the drugs previously shown to have clinical efficacy in AD trials or benefit in everyday practice have met the primary objectives of the respective trials, design of future clinical trials in MCI should be further developed particularly as regards the selection of more homogeneous samples at entry, optimal treatment duration, and multidimensional and reliable outcomes.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 43/100

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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 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	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	2006 — 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 16306154)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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 Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “mild-cognitive-impairment”

12 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mild-cognitive-impairment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 12 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →