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 62 out of 100. Vascular contributions

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of donepezil in patients with vascular dementia (VaD). Methods Patients (n = 616; mean age, 75.0 years) with probable or possible VaD, according to National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Association Internationale pour la Recherche en l'Enseignement en Neurosciences criteria, were randomized to receive donepezil 5 mg/day (n = 208), donepezil 10 mg/day (after 5 mg/day for the first 28 days) (n = 215), or placebo (n = 193) for 24 weeks. Results Seventy-six percent of the patients enrolled had probable VaD. A total of 75.3% of the 10 mg donepezil group and 80.8% of the 5 mg group completed the study compared with 83.4% of the placebo group. Both donepezil-treated groups showed improvements in cognitive function on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale compared with placebo, with a mean endpoint treatment difference, as measured by the change from baseline score, of approximately 2 points (donepezil 5 mg, -1.65 [p = 0.003]; 10 mg, -2.09 [p = 0.0002]). Greater improvements on the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change-plus version were observed with both donepezil groups than with the placebo group (overall donepezil treatment vs placebo p = 0.008); 25% of the placebo group showed improvement compared with 39% (p = 0.004) of the 5 mg group and 32% (p = 0.047) of the 10 mg group. Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were low (placebo, 8.8%; donepezil 5 mg, 10.1%; 10 mg, 16.3%). Conclusions Donepezil-treated patients demonstrated significant improvements in cognition and global function compared with placebo-treated patients, and donepezil was well tolerated.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 2 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; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 38 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.38 of the 61 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
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 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 2 / 4 616 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 2 / 2 Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
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
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12939421)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 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.

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

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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Wilkinson, D., Doody, R., Helme, R., Taubman, K., Mintzer, J., Kertesz, A., et al. (2003). Donepezil in vascular dementia: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000078943.50032.fc

Vancouver

Wilkinson D, Doody R, Helme R, Taubman K, Mintzer J, Kertesz A, et al. Donepezil in vascular dementia: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Neurology. 2003. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000078943.50032.fc. PMID: 12939421.

BibTeX

@article{wilkinson2003-12939421,
  author  = {Wilkinson, D. and Doody, R. and Helme, R. and Taubman, K. and Mintzer, J. and Kertesz, A. and Pratt, R. D. and {Donepezil 308 Study Group}},
  title   = {{Donepezil in vascular dementia: a randomized, placebo-controlled study}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1212/01.wnl.0000078943.50032.fc},
  pmid    = {12939421},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000078943.50032.fc}
}

Related studies in Vascular contributions

Similar studies

More on Vascular contributions

See all studies in Vascular contributions →