Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model
Bond M, Rogers G, Peters J, Anderson R, Hoyle M, Miners A, Moxham T, Davis S et al.. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2012-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK. Objectives Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bond, M., Rogers, G., Peters, J., Anderson, R., Hoyle, M., Miners, A., et al. (2012). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16210
Vancouver
Bond M, Rogers G, Peters J, Anderson R, Hoyle M, Miners A, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2012. doi:10.3310/hta16210. PMID: 22541366.
BibTeX
@article{bond2012-22541366,
author = {Bond, M. and Rogers, G. and Peters, J. and Anderson, R. and Hoyle, M. and Miners, A. and Moxham, T. and Davis, S. and others},
title = {{The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model}},
journal = {Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.3310/hta16210},
pmid = {22541366},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16210}
}
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
- It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK.
- Objectives Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009).
- Data sources Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or metaanalyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies.
- The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases--Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases--NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.
Why it matters
This systematic review and economic model updated guidance on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for Alzheimer's disease. It reviews existing treatments for symptoms and does not report a cure or way to prevent the disease.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 49 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 3 / 10 | Report — not peer-reviewed. Named source is an organisational report, not a journal article. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — 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 | 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 | 6 / 7 | Cited 309 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 19.3 citations a year over 16 year(s) since 2012 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 7 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 25 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Christopher Hyde: h-index 54 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine: institution h-index 1,106 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22541366) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 49 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.3310/hta16210
- PubMed: 22541366
- Original source →
- Free full text: Health Technology Assessment →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Later studies that cite this one
7 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.