Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease
Birks JS, Harvey R.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
However, some (like tacrine) are associated with adverse effects such as hepatotoxicity, but donepezil (E2020, Aricept) is safer. Selection criteria All unconfounded, double-blind, randomized controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was compared with placebo for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Main results Sixteen trials are included, involving 4365 participants. For cognition there is a statistically significant improvement for both 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil at 24 weeks compared with placebo (-2.02 points on the ADAS-Cog scale WMD, 95%CI -2.77 to -1.26, p<0.00001; -2.92 points on the ADAS-Cog scale WMD 95% CI -3.74 to -2.10, p<0.00001)and for 10 mg/day donepezil compared with placebo at 52 weeks (1.84MMSE points, 95% CI, 0.53 to3.15, p=0.006). The results show some improvement in global clinical state (assessed by an independent clinician) in people treated with 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil compared with placebo at 12 and 24 weeks. There were significantly more withdrawals before the end of treatment from the 10 mg/day (but not the 5 mg/day) donepezil group compared with placebo which may have resulted in some overestimation of beneficial changes at 10 mg/day.A variety of adverse effects were recorded, with more incidents of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and anorexia in the 10 mg/day group compared with placebo and the 5 mg/day group, but very few patients left a trial as a direct result of the intervention. Although no significant changes were measured on a patient-rated quality of life scales, the instrument used was crude and possibly unsuited to the task.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Birks, J. S., & Harvey, R. (2003). Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001190
Vancouver
Birks JS, Harvey R. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2003. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001190. PMID: 12917900.
BibTeX
@article{birks2003-12917900,
author = {Birks, J. S. and Harvey, R.},
title = {{Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
year = {2003},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.cd001190},
pmid = {12917900},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001190}
}
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
- However, some (like tacrine) are associated with adverse effects such as hepatotoxicity, but donepezil (E2020, Aricept) is safer.
- Selection criteria All unconfounded, double-blind, randomized controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was compared with placebo for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease.
- Main results Sixteen trials are included, involving 4365 participants.
- For cognition there is a statistically significant improvement for both 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil at 24 weeks compared with placebo (-2.02 points on the ADAS-Cog scale WMD, 95%CI -2.77 to -1.26, p<0.00001; -2.92 points on the ADAS-Cog scale WMD 95% CI -3.74 to -2.10, p<0.00001)and for 10 mg/day donepezil compared with placebo at 52 weeks (1.84MMSE points, 95% CI, 0.53 to3.15, p=0.006).
- The results show some improvement in global clinical state (assessed by an independent clinician) in people treated with 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil compared with placebo at 12 and 24 weeks.
Study details
- Participants4,365
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 78/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 4,365 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 12917900) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 45 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100. |
| Total | 78 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “trial”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “trial”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.