Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21146447›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2011

Cognitive enhancement by drugs in health and disease.

Masud Husain, Mitul A Mehta

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

89 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Acetylcholine and noradrenaline enhance foraging optimality in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Masud HusainUCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and UCL Institute of Neurology, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK. m.husain@ion.ucl.ac.uk
Mitul A Mehta

Funding

Wellcome Trust 061140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attempts to improve cognitive function in patients with brain disorders have become the focus of intensive research efforts. A recent emerging trend is the use of so-called cognitive enhancers by healthy individuals. Here, we consider some of the effects - positive and negative - that current drugs have in neurological conditions and healthy people. We conclude that, to date, experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated relatively modest overall effects, most probably because of substantial variability in response both across and within individuals. We discuss biological factors that might account for such variability and highlight the need to improve testing methods and to extend our understanding of how drugs modulate specific cognitive processes at the systems or network level.

Indexed as

BrainBrain DiseasesCentral Nervous System AgentsCognitionHumansIndividualityNeurotransmitter AgentsCentral Nervous System AgentsNeurotransmitter Agents

Identifiers

PMID21146447
PMCPMC3020278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.