Home › Research › Treatments
Memantine for dementia
Areosa SA, Sherriff F.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Main results Effect of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine for 20 mg/day on cognition (MD: 6.1. 95% CI 2.99 to 9.21, P=0.0001) activities of daily living (MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.74, p=0.01) and in the global clinical impression of change measured by the CIBIC-Plus at 28 weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02, p=0.04), in all cases the analysis was the ITT-LOCF population (Reisberg 2000). There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo for the number of drop-outs and total number of adverse effects, but a significant difference in favour of memantine for the number who suffer agitation. Effect of memantine in patients with mild to moderate vascular dementia: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine ( 20 mg/day ) for cognition (MD -2.19, 95% CI -3.16 to -1.21, P<0.0001) but there was no benefit for the clinical impression of change, or for global measures of dementia (MMM300, and MMM500). There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo for the number of drop-outs and total number of adverse effects, but a significant difference in favour of memantine for the number who suffer agitation. Effect of memantine in patients with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia at 12 weeks: there was no statistically significant difference between memantine (10 mg/day) and placebo in activities of daily living. There was a benefit in favour of memantine (10 mg/day) compared with placebo at 12 weeks, for the numbers improved in terms of clinical impression of change (60/82 compared with 38/84 - OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.72 to 6.33, P=0.0003) (Winblad 1999). There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo for the number of drop-outs and total number of adverse effects, but a significant difference in favour of placebo for the number who suffer restlessness.
Key findings
- Main results Effect of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine for 20 mg/day on cognition (MD: 6.1. 95% CI 2.99 to 9.21, P=0.0001) activities of daily living (MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.74, p=0.01) and in the global clinical impression of change measured by the CIBIC-Plus at 28 weeks (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.02, p=0.04), in all cases the analysis was the ITT-LOCF population (Reisberg 2000).
- There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo for the number of drop-outs and total number of adverse effects, but a significant difference in favour of memantine for the number who suffer agitation.
- Effect of memantine in patients with mild to moderate vascular dementia: analysis of the change from baseline at 28 weeks gave statistically significant results in favour of memantine ( 20 mg/day ) for cognition (MD -2.19, 95% CI -3.16 to -1.21, P<0.0001) but there was no benefit for the clinical impression of change, or for global measures of dementia (MMM300, and MMM500).
- There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo for the number of drop-outs and total number of adverse effects, but a significant difference in favour of memantine for the number who suffer agitation.
- Effect of memantine in patients with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia at 12 weeks: there was no statistically significant difference between memantine (10 mg/day) and placebo in activities of daily living.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Effect sizeOR 3.30
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size and studied in people 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”) |
| 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 | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12917950) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Areosa, S. A., & Sherriff, F. (2003). Memantine for dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003154
Vancouver
Areosa SA, Sherriff F. Memantine for dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2003. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003154. PMID: 12917950.
BibTeX
@article{areosa2003-12917950,
author = {Areosa, S. A. and Sherriff, F.},
title = {{Memantine for dementia}},
journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
year = {2003},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.cd003154},
pmid = {12917950},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003154}
}