Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22574633›Full record

ArticleDrugs & aging2012

How legislation on decisional capacity can negatively affect the feasibility of clinical trials in patients with dementia.

Francesca Galeotti, Nicola Vanacore, Sabina Gainotti, Fabio Izzicupo, Francesca Menniti-Ippolito, Carlo Petrini, Flavia Chiarotti, Rabih Chattat, Roberto Raschetti, AdCare Study Group

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs & aging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Awareness of cognitive deficits and clinical competence in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: their relevance in clinical practice.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2014
    Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Francesca GaleottiNational Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Nicola Vanacore
Sabina Gainotti
Fabio Izzicupo
Francesca Menniti-Ippolito
Carlo Petrini
Flavia Chiarotti
Rabih Chattat
Roberto Raschetti
AdCare Study Group
National Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antipsychotic drugs are widely used to treat behavioural and psychological disturbances associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), although only modest evidence from randomized controlled trials supports their efficacy, and increasing evidence from post-marketing surveillance shows serious adverse events associated with their use, including increased mortality. The AdCare study, a non-profit, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, pragmatic trial coordinated by the Italian National Institute of Health, aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy profiles of three atypical antipsychotic drugs (risperidone, olanzapine and quetiapine) and one conventional antipsychotic drug (haloperidol) in treating psychosis, aggression and agitation in outpatients with AD. The study was planned to be carried out in 19 clinical centres and to enrol 1000 outpatients. According to Italian law, in the case where a patient is considered unable to give informed consent, a legal representative designated by the court has to provide it. Because of difficulties in the informed consent procedure, the study had to be prematurely interrupted. From February 2009 to April 2010, 83 patients gave informed consent to participate in the trial. Fifty-six patients (68%) were included with consent given by a legal representative, while 27 patients (32%) were considered to provide personal informed consent on the basis of the results from a specifically built procedure. Patients and caregivers were offered the opportunity to participate in the trial before the occurrence of behavioural disturbances, in order to provide them with enough time to consider their participation in the study. Twenty-three patients experienced behavioural, clinically relevant symptoms and were randomized to the study drug; all randomized patients except one had consent for inclusion in the study given by legal representatives. After trial interruption, all patients taking an active drug continued treatment with the same molecule in clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials are acknowledged as the gold standard source of evidence on drug safety and efficacy. The AdCare study showed that an excessively rigid regulation can become a major obstacle while carrying out therapeutic research with incapacitated persons.

Indexed as

Decision MakingClinical Trials as TopicDementiaFeasibility StudiesHumansMental CompetencyPatient Selection

Identifiers

PMID22574633
OpenAlexW2019677744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.