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 70 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Objectives To test whether the addition of melatonin to bright-light therapy enhances the efficacy in treating rest-activity (circadian) disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Design Randomized, controlled trial. Setting Two nursing homes in San Francisco, California. Participants Fifty subjects (mean age 86) with AD. Intervention Experimental subjects received 1 hour of morning light exposure (> or = 2,500 lux in gaze direction) Monday to Friday for 10 weeks and 5 mg melatonin (LM, n=16) or placebo (LP, n=17) in the evening. Control subjects (n=17) received usual indoor light (150-200 lux). Measurements Nighttime sleep variables, day sleep time, day activity, day:night sleep ratio, and rest-activity parameters were determined using actigraphy. Results Linear mixed models were employed to test the primary study hypotheses. No significant differences in nighttime sleep variables were found between groups. At the end of the intervention, the LM group showed significant improvement in daytime somnolence as indicated by a reduction in the duration of daytime sleep, an increase in daytime activity, and an improvement in day:night sleep ratio. The LM group also evidenced a significant increase in rest-activity rhythm amplitude and goodness of fit to the cosinor model. Conclusion Light treatment alone did not improve nighttime sleep, daytime wake, or rest-activity rhythm. Light treatment plus melatonin increased daytime wake time and activity levels and strengthened the rest-activity rhythm. Future studies should resolve the question of whether these improvements can be attributed to melatonin or whether the two zeitgebers interact to amplify efficacy.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 70/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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. 43 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 70 of 100. Total 70 of 100.43 of the 61 points we could judge = 70 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 16 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)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (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 18070004)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100.
Total 70 / 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 7 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

Dowling, G. A., Burr, R. L., Van Someren, E. J., Hubbard, E. M., Luxenberg, J. S., Mastick, J., et al. (2008). Melatonin and bright-light treatment for rest-activity disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01543.x

Vancouver

Dowling GA, Burr RL, Van Someren EJ, Hubbard EM, Luxenberg JS, Mastick J, et al. Melatonin and bright-light treatment for rest-activity disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01543.x. PMID: 18070004.

BibTeX

@article{dowling2008-18070004,
  author  = {Dowling, G. A. and Burr, R. L. and Van Someren, E. J. and Hubbard, E. M. and Luxenberg, J. S. and Mastick, J. and Cooper, B. A.},
  title   = {{Melatonin and bright-light treatment for rest-activity disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2008},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01543.x},
  pmid    = {18070004},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01543.x}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “apnea”

196 studies in the library carry the topic tag “apnea”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 196 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →