Home › Research › Treatments
Nursing home placement in the Donepezil and Memantine in Moderate to Severe Alzheimer's Disease (DOMINO-AD) trial: secondary and post-hoc analyses
Howard R, McShane R, Lindesay J, Ritchie C, Baldwin A, Barber R, Burns A, Dening T et al.. The Lancet. Neurology, 2015-10-27
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
We noted significant (p=0·010) heterogeneity of treatment effect over time, with significantly more nursing home placements in the combined donepezil discontinuation groups during the first year (hazard ratio 2·09 [95% CI 1·29-3·39]) than in the combined donepezil continuation groups, and no difference during the next 3 years (0·89 [0·58-1·35]). We noted no effect of patients starting memantine compared with not starting memantine during the first year (0·92 [0·58-1·45]) or the next 3 years (1·23 [0·81-1·87]).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Howard, R., McShane, R., Lindesay, J., Ritchie, C., Baldwin, A., Barber, R., et al. (2015). Nursing home placement in the Donepezil and Memantine in Moderate to Severe Alzheimer's Disease (DOMINO-AD) trial: secondary and post-hoc analyses. The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00258-6
Vancouver
Howard R, McShane R, Lindesay J, Ritchie C, Baldwin A, Barber R, et al. Nursing home placement in the Donepezil and Memantine in Moderate to Severe Alzheimer's Disease (DOMINO-AD) trial: secondary and post-hoc analyses. The Lancet. Neurology. 2015. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00258-6. PMID: 26515660.
BibTeX
@article{howard2015-26515660,
author = {Howard, R. and McShane, R. and Lindesay, J. and Ritchie, C. and Baldwin, A. and Barber, R. and Burns, A. and Dening, T. and others},
title = {{Nursing home placement in the Donepezil and Memantine in Moderate to Severe Alzheimer's Disease (DOMINO-AD) trial: secondary and post-hoc analyses}},
journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00258-6},
pmid = {26515660},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00258-6}
}
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
- We noted significant (p=0·010) heterogeneity of treatment effect over time, with significantly more nursing home placements in the combined donepezil discontinuation groups during the first year (hazard ratio 2·09 [95% CI 1·29-3·39]) than in the combined donepezil continuation groups, and no difference during the next 3 years (0·89 [0·58-1·35]).
- We noted no effect of patients starting memantine compared with not starting memantine during the first year (0·92 [0·58-1·45]) or the next 3 years (1·23 [0·81-1·87]).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 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 Lancet. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A 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 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomized / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomized (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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26515660) |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “secondary”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “secondary”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.