Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30612155›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019

Quantifying placebo responses in clinical evaluation of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease.

Ningyuan Zhang, Yinghua Lv, Huafang Li, Junchao Chen, Yunfei Li, Fang Yin, Lujin Li, Qingshan Zheng

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Assessing clinical progression measures in Alzheimer's disease trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Ningyuan ZhangCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China.
Yinghua LvCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China.
Huafang LiShanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai, China.
Junchao ChenCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China.
Yunfei LiCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China.
Fang YinCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China.
Lujin LiCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China. lilujin666@163.com.
Qingshan ZhengCenter for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Road, Shanghai, 201203, China. qingshan.zheng@drugchina.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to establish a non-linear mixed effects model to quantitatively analyze the placebo responses of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in Alzheimer's disease (AD).

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in public databases. Placebo-controlled randomized AD clinical trials using the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI) score as the primary or secondary outcome were included. Non-linear mixed effects model was used to describe the time course of the placebo responses of NPS in AD clinical trials. Potential affecting factors were tested as covariates.

resultsA total of 32 clinical studies (involving 3942 subjects) were included in model-based analysis. We found that the maximal placebo responses of NPS were reached at week 4 approximately, after which rebound effects appeared. The baseline NPI score had a significant impact on the placebo responses. Higher baseline NPI score tended to cause greater reductions in NPI score at week 8 and a smaller degree of rebound. For AD patients whose normalized baseline NPI score was 10 points and 30 points, the reduction in normalized NPI score at week 8 was estimated to be 0.83 and 7.43 points, respectively; and the rebound rate after week 8 was estimated to be 0.1 points/week and 0.08 points/week, respectively.

conclusionsThe duration of 4 weeks is sufficient to determine the drug efficacy for assessing NPS in AD clinical trials. The baseline NPI score was a key factor associated with placebo responses of NPS, which should be considered when designing future clinical trials and conducting comparisons across trials.

Indexed as

Nonlinear DynamicsPlacebo EffectAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseCholinesterase InhibitorsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleNootropic AgentsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCholinesterase InhibitorsNootropic AgentsAlzheimer’s diseaseClinical trial designModel-based meta-analysisNeuropsychiatric symptomsPlacebo responses

Identifiers

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.