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 83 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

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 23 trials are included, involving 5272 participants. For cognition there is a statistically significant improvement for both 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil at 24 weeks compared with placebo on the ADAS-Cog scale (-2.01 points MD, 95%CI -2.69 to -1.34, p<0.00001); -2.80 points, MD 95% CI -3.74 to -2.10, p<0.00001) and for 10 mg/day donepezil compared with placebo at 52 weeks (1.84 MMSE points, 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.15, p=0.006). The results show some improvement in global clinical state (assessed by a clinician) in people treated with 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil compared with placebo at 24 weeks for the number of patients showing improvement or no change (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.11, p=<0.0001, OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.19, p<0.00001). 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. Two studies presented results for health resource use, and the associated costs. There were no significant differences between treatment and placebo for any item, the cost of any item, and for the total costs, and total costs including the informal carer costs. A variety of adverse effects were recorded, with more incidents of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, muscle cramps, dizziness, fatigue and anorexia (significant risk associated with treatment) in the 10 mg/day group compared with placebo but very few patients left a trial as a direct result of the intervention. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total health care resource costs. Taking into consideration the better tolerability of the 5 mg/day donepezil compared with the 10 mg/day dose, together with the lower cost, the lower dose may be the better option.

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

APA 7th

Birks, J., & Harvey, R. J. (2006). Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001190.pub2

Vancouver

Birks J, Harvey RJ. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2006. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001190.pub2. PMID: 16437430.

BibTeX

@article{birks2006-16437430,
  author  = {Birks, J. and Harvey, R. J.},
  title   = {{Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1002/14651858.cd001190.pub2},
  pmid    = {16437430},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001190.pub2}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 83/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 48 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 83 of 100. Total 83 of 100.48 of the 58 points we could judge = 83 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 83 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”)
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 3 / 4 5,272 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
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 16437430)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 48 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 83 out of 100.
Total 83 / 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 Caregiving

Also tagged “placebo-controlled”

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

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →