Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26208489›Full record

ArticleCurrent treatment options in neurology2015

Treatment of Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Brendan J Kelley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current treatment options in neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Alzheimer Disease.Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) · 2016
    Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brendan J KelleyDepartment of Neurology, The Ohio State University, 395 W. 12th Ave.-7th Floor, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA, Brendan.kelley@osumc.edu.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementIt is increasingly evident that early identification of cognitive impairment in older adults presents opportunities for interventions that aim to mitigate the impact of cognitive symptoms on daily function and that attempt to delay (or ultimately prevent) progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia. To date, no intervention has proven protective in ultimately preventing conversion to dementia. However, several lifestyle, dietary, and pharmacologic interventions have suggested symptomatic benefit for those having MCI. A number of diet and lifestyle recommendations have been associated with decreased risk of dementia both in cognitively intact older adults and in those having mild cognitive impairment. Thus, these recommendations may be appropriate for both people presenting with subjective cognitive concerns and for those having objective evidence of memory problems. It remains less certain whether adopting these lifestyle habits in later life confers the benefits seen in epidemiological cohorts (where people have likely practiced them for many years). Discussion of starting on a cholinesterase inhibitor is appropriate for those having MCI, particularly those in whom the MCI is thought to have a vascular etiology or to represent the prodromal stage of a neurodegenerative disease. Recent meta-analyses exploring the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients having MCI have concluded that there is no evidence to support this practice. Although meta-analytic techniques seemingly strengthen the confidence in a recommendation via the incorporation of a large number of subjects analyzed, the technique is not capable of overcoming any inherent weaknesses of the individual studies included in the analysis. It is arguable whether studies in MCI may have employed endpoints poorly adapted to investigating effect of cholinesterase inhibitors. Most studies have used cognitive screening examinations, all of which stretch their detection ability to identify subjects with MCI, let alone discriminate subtle differences between them. Some have used conversion from MCI to dementia as an endpoint, which may not be the best measure for a symptomatic treatment. Further, once conversion to dementia has occurred, a cholinesterase inhibitor would be started in most (if not all) clinical settings, a reality not well reflected in most study designs. Additionally, several large studies have not permitted subject stratification by APOE carrier status, another important defect in assessing outcome. In clinical practice, our center typically does recommend cholinesterase inhibitors for patients having MCI. Despite the modest effect size, many patients do wish to start on treatment. It appears that this is a generally accepted practice and experience, as most clinical trials for prodromal Alzheimer's disease specify that participants should be taking a cholinesterase inhibitor.

Identifiers

PMID26208489
OpenAlexW1883862800

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.