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.

84/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Of 285 participants randomized (suvorexant, N = 142; placebo, N = 143), 277 (97%) completed the trial (suvorexant, N = 136; placebo, N = 141). At week 4, the model-based least squares mean improvement-from-baseline in TST was 73 minutes for suvorexant and 45 minutes for placebo; (difference = 28 minutes [95% confidence interval 11-45], p < 0.01). Somnolence was reported in 4.2% of suvorexant-treated patients and 1.4% of placebo-treated patients. Suvorexant improved TST in patients with probable AD dementia and insomnia.

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

APA 7th

Herring, W. J., Ceesay, P., Snyder, E., Bliwise, D., Budd, K., Hutzelmann, J., et al. (2020). Polysomnographic assessment of suvorexant in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and insomnia: a randomized trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12035

Vancouver

Herring WJ, Ceesay P, Snyder E, Bliwise D, Budd K, Hutzelmann J, et al. Polysomnographic assessment of suvorexant in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and insomnia: a randomized trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2020. doi:10.1002/alz.12035. PMID: 31944580.

BibTeX

@article{herring2020-31944580,
  author  = {Herring, W Joseph and Ceesay, Paulette and Snyder, Ellen and Bliwise, Donald and Budd, Kerry and Hutzelmann, Jill and Stevens, Joanne and Lines, Christopher and others},
  title   = {{Polysomnographic assessment of suvorexant in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and insomnia: a randomized trial}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.12035},
  pmid    = {31944580},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12035}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record lists 142 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “4.2%; 1.4%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Of 285 participants randomized (suvorexant, N = 142; placebo, N = 143), 277 (97%) completed the trial (suvorexant, N = 136; placebo, N = 141).
At week 4, the model-based least squares mean improvement-from-baseline in TST was 73 minutes for suvorexant and 45 minutes for placebo; (difference = 28 minutes [95% confidence interval 11-45], p < 0.01).
Somnolence was reported in 4.2% of suvorexant-treated patients and 1.4% of placebo-treated patients.
Suvorexant improved TST in patients with probable AD dementia and insomnia.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Participants142
Effect size4.2%; 1.4%
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 84/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomized 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, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 84 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
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	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	142 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)
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 31944580)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	47 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 84 out of 100.
Total	84 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also tagged “apnea”

196 studies in the library carry the topic tag “apnea”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 196 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →