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 77 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Disturbance in the metabolism of tryptophan and tryptophan-derived compounds (e.g., melatonin) may have a role in the pathogenesis of delirium. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of low dose exogenous melatonin in decreasing delirium. Design A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Setting An Internal Medicine service in a tertiary care centre in London, Ontario, Canada. Participants 145 individuals aged 65 years or over admitted through the emergency department to a medical unit in a tertiary care hospital. Intervention Patients were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg of melatonin or placebo every night for 14 days or until discharge. Measurements The primary outcome was the occurrence of delirium as determined by Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria. Results Of a total of 145 individuals (mean age (standard deviation): 84.5 (6.1) years) 72 were randomly assigned to the melatonin group and 73 to the placebo group. Melatonin was associated with a lower risk of delirium (12.0% vs. 31.0%, p = 0.014), with an odds ratio (OR), adjusted for dementia and co-morbidities of 0.19 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.06-0.62). Results were not different when patients with prevalent delirium were excluded. Limitation An intention to treat analysis was not possible due to loss to follow-up. Conclusion Exogenous low dose melatonin administered nightly to elderly patients admitted to acute care may represent a potential protective agent against delirium.

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

APA 7th

Al-Aama, T., Brymer, C., Gutmanis, I., Woolmore-Goodwin, S. M., Esbaugh, J., & Dasgupta, M. (2011). Melatonin decreases delirium in elderly patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2582

Vancouver

Al-Aama T, Brymer C, Gutmanis I, Woolmore-Goodwin SM, Esbaugh J, Dasgupta M. Melatonin decreases delirium in elderly patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2011. doi:10.1002/gps.2582. PMID: 20845391.

BibTeX

@article{alaama2011-20845391,
  author  = {Al-Aama, T. and Brymer, C. and Gutmanis, I. and Woolmore-Goodwin, S. M. and Esbaugh, J. and Dasgupta, M.},
  title   = {{Melatonin decreases delirium in elderly patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1002/gps.2582},
  pmid    = {20845391},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2582}
}

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 77/100
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 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. 47 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 77 of 100. Total 77 of 100.47 of the 61 points we could judge = 77 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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 47 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 77 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
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 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 145 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 20845391)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 47 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 77 out of 100.
Total 77 / 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 Clinical safety

Also tagged “double-blind”

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

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →