Home › Research › Treatments
Memantine for dementia in adults older than 40 years with Down's syndrome (MEADOWS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Hanney M, Prasher V, Williams N, Jones EL, Aarsland D, Corbett A, Lawrence D, Yu LM et al.. Lancet (London, England), 2012-01-10
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
After adjustment for baseline score, there were non-significant differences between groups of -4·1 (95% CI -13·1 to 4·8) in DAMES scores, -8·5 (-20·1 to 3·1) in ABS I scores, and 2·0 (-7·2 to 11·3) in ABS II scores, all in favour of controls. 10 (11%) of 88 participants in the memantine group and six (7%) of 85 controls had serious adverse events (p=0·33).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hanney, M., Prasher, V., Williams, N., Jones, E. L., Aarsland, D., Corbett, A., et al. (2012). Memantine for dementia in adults older than 40 years with Down's syndrome (MEADOWS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61676-0
Vancouver
Hanney M, Prasher V, Williams N, Jones EL, Aarsland D, Corbett A, et al. Memantine for dementia in adults older than 40 years with Down's syndrome (MEADOWS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet (London, England). 2012. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61676-0. PMID: 22236802.
BibTeX
@article{hanney2012-22236802,
author = {Hanney, M. and Prasher, V. and Williams, N. and Jones, E. L. and Aarsland, D. and Corbett, A. and Lawrence, D. and Yu, L. M. and others},
title = {{Memantine for dementia in adults older than 40 years with Down's syndrome (MEADOWS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial}},
journal = {Lancet (London, England)},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61676-0},
pmid = {22236802},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61676-0}
}
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.
Key findings
- After adjustment for baseline score, there were non-significant differences between groups of -4·1 (95% CI -13·1 to 4·8) in DAMES scores, -8·5 (-20·1 to 3·1) in ABS I scores, and 2·0 (-7·2 to 11·3) in ABS II scores, all in favour of controls. 10 (11%) of 88 participants in the memantine group and six (7%) of 85 controls had serious adverse events (p=0·33).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants88
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 77/100
Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a randomized 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 47 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 77 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Lancet (London, England)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomized 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 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 88 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomized 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22236802) |
| 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “randomised-double-blind”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomised-double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.