Home › Research › Drug development
Investigational drugs in Alzheimer's disease: current progress
Berk C, Paul G, Sabbagh M.. Expert opinion on investigational drugs, 2014-04-05
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting millions of people worldwide. Yet, this disease is presently incurable and treatable only in terms of modest delay of symptomatic progression. The need for more effective pharmacological intervention is becoming more pronounced as the patient population increases. Areas covered This paper outlines and evaluates the current landscape of interventions in early phases of clinical study. Data and analysis for this review were procured from PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, review of posters, abstracts and presentations from American Neurological Association, American Academy of Neurology meetings, Alzheimer's Association International Conference and Clinical Trials on Alzheimer's disease. Keywords and criteria searched included: Phase 0, I, and II trials related to Alzheimer's disease, amyloid-β, anti-tau, monoclonal antibodies and metabolism. Expert opinion The development of novel pharmacological interventions would be more fruitful if multitarget therapies were introduced, and unexplored mechanisms of action were expanded upon. Additionally, there is a rationale for intervening earlier in the disease, perhaps preceding or at the advent of symptoms.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Berk, C., Paul, G., & Sabbagh, M. (2014). Investigational drugs in Alzheimer's disease: current progress. Expert opinion on investigational drugs. https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.2014.905542
Vancouver
Berk C, Paul G, Sabbagh M. Investigational drugs in Alzheimer's disease: current progress. Expert opinion on investigational drugs. 2014. doi:10.1517/13543784.2014.905542. PMID: 24702504.
BibTeX
@article{berk2014-24702504,
author = {Berk, C. and Paul, G. and Sabbagh, M.},
title = {{Investigational drugs in Alzheimer's disease: current progress}},
journal = {Expert opinion on investigational drugs},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1517/13543784.2014.905542},
pmid = {24702504},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.2014.905542}
}
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
- Areas covered This paper outlines and evaluates the current landscape of interventions in early phases of clinical study.
- Data and analysis for this review were procured from PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, review of posters, abstracts and presentations from American Neurological Association, American Academy of Neurology meetings, Alzheimer's Association International Conference and Clinical Trials on Alzheimer's disease.
- Keywords and criteria searched included: Phase 0, I, and II trials related to Alzheimer's disease, amyloid-β, anti-tau, monoclonal antibodies and metabolism.
- Expert opinion The development of novel pharmacological interventions would be more fruitful if multitarget therapies were introduced, and unexplored mechanisms of action were expanded upon.
- Additionally, there is a rationale for intervening earlier in the disease, perhaps preceding or at the advent of symptoms.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Expert opinion on investigational drugs) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2014 — 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 | 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 24702504) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.