Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25941104›Full record

SynthesisDrugs & aging2015

A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Dementia Medications: Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Jacob S Buckley, Shelley R Salpeter

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drugs & aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Smart Glasses for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob S BuckleyBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Shelley R Salpeter
Brown University · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no cure for dementia, and no treatments exist to halt or reverse the course of the disease. Treatments are aimed at improving cognitive and functional outcomes.

objectiveOur objective was to review the basis of pharmacological treatments for dementia and to summarize the benefits and risks of dementia treatments.

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE through November 2014, for English-language trials and observational studies on treatment of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Additional references were identified by searching bibliographies of relevant publications. Whenever possible, pooled data from meta-analyses or systematic reviews were obtained. Studies were included for review if they were randomized trials or observational studies on dementia or mild cognitive impairment that evaluated efficacy outcomes or adverse outcomes associated with treatment. Studies were excluded if they evaluated non-FDA approved treatments, or if they evaluated treatment in disorders other than dementia and mild cognitive impairment.

resultsThe literature search found 540 potentially relevant studies, of which 257 were included in the systematic review. In pooled trial data, cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) produce small improvements in cognitive, functional, and global benefits in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's and Lewy body dementia, but the clinical significance of these effects are unclear. There is no significant benefit seen for vascular dementia. The efficacy of ChEI treatment appears to wane over time, with minimal benefit seen after 1 year. There is no evidence for benefit for those with advanced disease or those aged over 85 years. Adverse effects are significantly increased with ChEIs, in a dose-dependent manner. A two- to fivefold increased risk for gastrointestinal, neurological, and cardiovascular side effects is related to cholinergic stimulation, the most serious being weight loss, debility, and syncope. Those aged over 85 years have double the risk of adverse events compared with younger patients. Memantine monotherapy may provide some cognitive benefit for patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's and vascular dementia, but the benefit is small and may wane over the course of several months. Memantine exhibits no significant benefit in mild dementia or Lewy body dementia or as an add-on treatment with ChEIs. Memantine has a relatively favorable side-effect profile, at least under controlled trial conditions.

conclusionsChEIs produce small, short-lived improvements in cognitive function in mild to moderate dementia, which may not translate into clinically meaningful effects. Marginal benefits are seen with severe disease, long-term treatment, and advanced age. Cholinergic side effects, including weight loss, debility, and syncope, are clinically significant and could be especially detrimental in the frail elderly population, in which the risks of treatment outweigh the benefits. Memantine monotherapy may have minimal benefits in moderate to severe dementia, balanced by minimal adverse effects.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCholinesterase InhibitorsDementiaFemaleHumansMaleMemantineMiddle AgedObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentCholinesterase InhibitorsMemantine

Identifiers

PMID25941104
OpenAlexW1720436125

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.