Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29616705›Full record

ReviewThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2018

A Literature Review of Methodologies Used in Randomized Clinical Trials of Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease.

S Dubé, J T Megerian, R Malamut

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

S DubéSanjay Dubé, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 30 Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, Tel: 949-389-6700, Fax: 949-643-6800, Email: SDube@avanir.com.
J T Megerian
R Malamut

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agitation is a common and burdensome symptom associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). This is a narrative literature review of the designs and methods used in randomized clinical trials of agitation in patients with AD; sources range from published, to completed but not published, to ongoing studies in the past 10 years. Selection for review included blinded, randomized trials conducted to assess the effect of a pharmacological intervention for which agitation in patients with AD was among the prespecified end points. Key criteria for exclusion included open-label studies, trials of dementia not specific to AD, or mixed populations of AD and unspecified dementia. A search of PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases identified 36 trials for which agitation was among the prespecified end points: 18 were published trials and 18 were completed but not published or ongoing. There was significant heterogeneity among AD studies in terms of diagnostic criteria, assessment of severity of disease and agitation, sample size and powering assumptions, treatment duration, patient age and cognitive status, and outcomes measurements. Few studies used a mitigation strategy for placebo response. Accumulating evidence suggests that it is important to consider the following in trial design: thresholds for baseline severity of agitation and AD; use of prespecified accepted criteria to define agitation; and use of standardized, validated tools to measure treatment effects during a trial. Adoption of these design strategies might help improve signal detection and bring us closer to identifying the most appropriate, effective, and safe treatments for agitation in patients with AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseHumansPsychomotor AgitationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicagitationAlzheimer’s diseaseassessment toolsmethodologytrial design

Identifiers

PMID29616705
PMCPMC12280756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.