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.

69/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Background Observational studies have shown reduced risk of Alzheimer dementia in users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Objective To evaluate the effects of naproxen sodium and celecoxib on cognitive function in older adults. Design Randomized, double-masked chemoprevention trial. Setting Six US memory clinics. Participants Men and women aged 70 years and older with a family history of Alzheimer disease; 2117 of 2528 enrolled had follow-up cognitive assessment. Interventions Celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), naproxen sodium (220 mg twice daily), or placebo, randomly allocated in a ratio of 1:1:1.5, respectively. Main outcome measures Seven tests of cognitive function and a global summary score measured annually. Results Longitudinal analyses showed lower global summary scores over time for naproxen compared with placebo (- 0.05 SDs; P = .02) and lower scores on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination over time for both treatment groups compared with placebo (- 0.33 points for celecoxib [P = .04] and - 0.36 points for naproxen [P = .02]). Restriction of analyses to measures collected from persons without dementia attenuated the treatment group differences. Analyses limited to measures obtained while participants were being issued study drugs produced results similar to the intention-to-treat analyses. Conclusions Use of naproxen or celecoxib did not improve cognitive function. There was weak evidence for a detrimental effect of naproxen.

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

APA 7th

ADAPT Research Group, Martin, B. K., Szekely, C., Brandt, J., Piantadosi, S., Breitner, J. C., et al. (2008). Cognitive function over time in the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT): results of a randomized, controlled trial of naproxen and celecoxib. Archives of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.2008.65.7.nct70006

Vancouver

ADAPT Research Group, Martin BK, Szekely C, Brandt J, Piantadosi S, Breitner JC, et al. Cognitive function over time in the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT): results of a randomized, controlled trial of naproxen and celecoxib. Archives of neurology. 2008. doi:10.1001/archneur.2008.65.7.nct70006. PMID: 18474729.

BibTeX

@article{study2008-18474729,
  author  = {{ADAPT Research Group} and Martin, B. K. and Szekely, C. and Brandt, J. and Piantadosi, S. and Breitner, J. C. and Craft, S. and Evans, D. and others},
  title   = {{Cognitive function over time in the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT): results of a randomized, controlled trial of naproxen and celecoxib}},
  journal = {Archives of neurology},
  year    = {2008},
  doi     = {10.1001/archneur.2008.65.7.nct70006},
  pmid    = {18474729},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.2008.65.7.nct70006}
}

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.

Key findings

Results Longitudinal analyses showed lower global summary scores over time for naproxen compared with placebo (- 0.05 SDs; P = .02) and lower scores on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination over time for both treatment groups compared with placebo (- 0.33 points for celecoxib [P = .04] and - 0.36 points for naproxen [P = .02]).
Analyses limited to measures obtained while participants were being issued study drugs produced results similar to the intention-to-treat analyses.

Why it matters

In this randomized trial, use of naproxen or celecoxib did not improve cognitive function; naproxen was associated with lower global summary scores over time compared with placebo, and both treatments showed lower scores on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination. The trial was stopped early, and analyses limited to measures collected while participants were taking study drugs gave similar results.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 69/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 66 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of neurology)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Archives of Neurology: journal h-index 353 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	11 / 12	A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized 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	2008 — 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	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded	1 / 2	Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited	6 / 7	Cited 387 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	19.4 citations a year over 20 year(s) since 2008
Impact for its field and year	5 / 6	Cited 25.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 24 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 31 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	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 18474729)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	66 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 66 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total	69 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Studies this one cites

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

Later studies that cite this one

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

Related studies in Treatments

Also tagged “double-blind”

783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →