ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2019
Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Late-Stage Alzheimer's Disease.
Review in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Nutrition and hydration for people living with dementia near the end of life: A qualitative systematic review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2021Pooled it
- The therapeutic efficacy of nanoparticles in the treatment of alzheimer's disease.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Review
- Key Chemotypes for the Rational Design of Dual AChE/BACE-1 Inhibitors.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Advances of Genome Editing with CRISPR/Cas9 in Neurodegeneration: The Right Path towards Therapy.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Good problems to have? Policy and societal implications of a disease-modifying therapy for presymptomatic late-onset Alzheimer's disease.Life sciences, society and policy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is hope that the continuing efforts of researchers will yield a disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's disease. Such a drug is likely to be capable of halting, or significantly slowing, the underlying pathological processes driving cognitive decline; however, it is unlikely to be capable of restoring brain function already lost through the pathological process. A therapy capable of halting Alzheimer's disease, while not providing restoration of function, may prompt serious ethical questions. For example, is there a stage in the disease process when it becomes too late for therapeutic intervention to commence? And who bears the responsibility of making such a decision? Conversations regarding the ethics of treating neurodegenerative conditions with non-restorative drugs have been largely absent within both clinical and research communities. Such discussions are urgently required to ensure that patients' rights and well-being are protected when such therapeutic options become available.
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.