Home › Research › Treatments
Memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
Winblad B, Jones RW, Wirth Y, Stöffler A, Möbius HJ.. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2007-05-10
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The efficacy of memantine in Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been investigated in multiple randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trials. Recently, the indication label for memantine in Europe was extended to cover patients with moderate to severe AD, i.e. Mini-Mental State Exam total scores below 20. The efficacy data for memantine in this patient subgroup has been summarised by a meta-analysis of 1,826 patients in six trials. Efficacy was assessed using measures of global status (Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input), cognition (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale, or Severe Impairment Battery), function (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living 19- or 23-item scale), and behaviour (Neuropsychiatric Inventory). Results (without replacement of missing values) showed statistically significant effects for memantine (vs. placebo) in each domain. Memantine was well tolerated, and the overall incidence rates of adverse events were comparable to placebo. This meta-analysis supports memantine's clinically relevant efficacy in patients with moderate to severe AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Winblad, B., Jones, R. W., Wirth, Y., Stöffler, A., & Möbius, H. J. (2007). Memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.1159/000102568
Vancouver
Winblad B, Jones RW, Wirth Y, Stöffler A, Möbius HJ. Memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2007. doi:10.1159/000102568. PMID: 17496417.
BibTeX
@article{winblad2007-17496417,
author = {Winblad, B. and Jones, R. W. and Wirth, Y. and Stöffler, A. and Möbius, H. J.},
title = {{Memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials}},
journal = {Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1159/000102568},
pmid = {17496417},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000102568}
}
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
- Results (without replacement of missing values) showed statistically significant effects for memantine (vs. placebo) in each domain.
- Memantine was well tolerated, and the overall incidence rates of adverse events were comparable to placebo.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants1,826
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders) |
| 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 |
| 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 | 2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,826 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 | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17496417) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 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-clinical”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomised-clinical”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.