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.

38/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

No drug has been approved to prevent neuronal cell loss in patients suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) or Alzheimer's disease (AD); despite increased comprehension of the underlying molecular causes, therapies target cognitive functional improvement and motor fluctuation control. Drug design strategies that adopt the "one protein, one target" philosophy fail to address the multifactorial aetiologies of neurodegenerative disorders such as AD and PD optimally. On the contrary, restoring neurotransmitter levels by combined combinatorial inhibition of cholinesterases, monoamine oxidases, and adenosine A 2A A receptors, in conjunction with strategies to counter oxidative stress and beta-amyloid plaque accumulation, would constitute a therapeutically robust, multitarget approach. This extensive review delineates the therapeutic advantages of combining dual-acting molecules that inhibit monoamine oxidases and cholinesterases and/or adenosine A 2A A receptors, and describes the structure-activity relationships of compound classes that include, but are not limited to, alkaloids, coumarins, chalcones, donepezil-propargylamine conjugates, homoisoflavonoids, resveratrol analogs, hydrazones, and pyrazolines. In the wake of recent advances in network biology, in silico approaches, and omics, this review emphasizes the need to consider conceptually informed research strategies for drug discovery, in the context of the mounting burden posed by chronic neurodegenerative diseases with complex aetiologies and pathophysiologies involving multiple signalling pathways and numerous drug targets.

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

APA 7th

Mathew, B., Parambi, D. G. T., Mathew, G. E., Uddin, M. S., Inasu, S. T., Kim, H., et al. (2019). Emerging therapeutic potentials of dual-acting MAO and AChE inhibitors in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Archiv der Pharmazie. https://doi.org/10.1002/ardp.201900177

Vancouver

Mathew B, Parambi DGT, Mathew GE, Uddin MS, Inasu ST, Kim H, et al. Emerging therapeutic potentials of dual-acting MAO and AChE inhibitors in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Archiv der Pharmazie. 2019. doi:10.1002/ardp.201900177. PMID: 31478569.

BibTeX

@article{mathew2019-31478569,
  author  = {Mathew, B. and Parambi, D. G. T. and Mathew, G. E. and Uddin, M. S. and Inasu, S. T. and Kim, H. and Marathakam, A. and Unnikrishnan, M. K. and others},
  title   = {{Emerging therapeutic potentials of dual-acting MAO and AChE inhibitors in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases}},
  journal = {Archiv der Pharmazie},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1002/ardp.201900177},
  pmid    = {31478569},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ardp.201900177}
}

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.

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 low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

No drug has been approved to prevent neuronal cell loss in patients suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) or Alzheimer's disease (AD); despite increased comprehension of the underlying molecular causes, therapies target cognitive functional improvement and motor fluctuation control.
Drug design strategies that adopt the "one protein, one target" philosophy fail to address the multifactorial aetiologies of neurodegenerative disorders such as AD and PD optimally.
On the contrary, restoring neurotransmitter levels by combined combinatorial inhibition of cholinesterases, monoamine oxidases, and adenosine A 2A A receptors, in conjunction with strategies to counter oxidative stress and beta-amyloid plaque accumulation, would constitute a therapeutically robust, multitarget approach.
This extensive review delineates the therapeutic advantages of combining dual-acting molecules that inhibit monoamine oxidases and cholinesterases and/or adenosine A 2A A receptors, and describes the structure-activity relationships of compound classes that include, but are not limited to, alkaloids, coumarins, chalcones, donepezil-propargylamine conjugates, homoisoflavonoids, resveratrol analogs, hydrazones, and pyrazolines.
In the wake of recent advances in network biology, in silico approaches, and omics, this review emphasizes the need to consider conceptually informed research strategies for drug discovery, in the context of the mounting burden posed by chronic neurodegenerative diseases with complex aetiologies and pathophysiologies involving multiple signalling pathways and numerous drug targets.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 38/100

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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archiv der Pharmazie)
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	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2019 — within 10 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	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 31478569)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	22 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total	38 / 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 “emerging-therapeutic”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “emerging-therapeutic”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →