ReviewAmerican journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias2013
Prediction models for assessing long-term outcome in Alzheimer's disease: a review.
Review in American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Testing whether the progression of Alzheimer's disease changes with the year of publication, additional design, and geographical area: a modeling analysis of literature aggregate data.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2020Pooled it
- How general practitioners would deprescribe in frail oldest-old with polypharmacy - the LESS study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Long-term efficacy and toxicity of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer disease.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), placebo-controlled long-term studies of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are not permitted for ethical reasons. Therefore, in these studies, patients' outcomes on cognitive and functional assessment scales must be compared with mathematical models or historical data from untreated cohorts. PubMed and previously published long-term extensions of clinical trials and naturalistic studies of ChEIs were examined to identify empirical statistical models and other approaches, such as use of data from historical cohorts or extrapolated changes from extension studies, that were used to draw comparisons between ChEI-treated and untreated patients. The models and methods were described. It is essential to be aware of the limitations of comparisons made with these approaches. Prediction models based on ChEI-treated patients can be used in the studies of new treatments when those treatments are added to ChEIs. More sophisticated models that also accommodate patient-specific characteristics should be developed for comparisons in future long-term AD studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.