Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30688266›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2019

Comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for treating vascular cognitive impairment: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Bo-Ru Jin, Hua-Yan Liu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bo-Ru JinDepartment of Neurology, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
Hua-Yan LiuDepartment of Neurology, First Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
First Hospital of China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) on cognition, behavior, function, and global status in patients with vascular cognitive impairment. DATA SOURCES: The initial literature search was performed with PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) from inception to January 2018 for studies regarding donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for treatment of vascular cognitive impairment. DATA SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials on donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine as monotherapy in the treatment of vascular cognitive impairment were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was assessed by changes in scores of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores and Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Scale Plus Caregiver's Input, Activities of Daily Living, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale. Safety was evaluated by mortality, total adverse events (TAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), nausea, vomiting. diarrhea, or cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs).

resultsAfter screening 1717 citations, 12 randomized controlled trials were included. Donepezil and rivastigmine (mean difference (e) = -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-1.32; MD = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.18-1.79) were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing Mini-Mental State Examination scores. Donepezil, galantamine, and memantine (MD = -1.30, 95% CI: -2.27 to -0.42; MD = -1.67, 95% CI: -3.36 to -0.06; MD = -2.27, 95% CI: -3.91 to -0.53) showed superior benefits on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive scores compared with placebo. Memantine (MD = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.05-7.29) improved global status (Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Scale Plus Caregiver's Input) more than the placebo. Safety results revealed that donepezil 10 mg (odds ratio (OR) = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.86-5.41) contributed to higer risk of adverse events than placebo. Galantamine (OR = 5.64, 95% CI: 1.31-26.71) increased the risk of nausea. Rivastigmine (OR = 16.80, 95% CI: 1.78-319.26) increased the risk of vomiting. No agents displayed a significant risk of serious adverse events, mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, or diarrhea.

conclusionWe found significant efficacy of donepezil, galantamine, and memantine on cognition. Memantine can provide significant efficacy in global status. They are all safe and well tolerated.

Indexed as

Bayesian network meta-analysischolinesterase inhibitorsdonepezilgalantaminememantinenerve regenerationneural regenerationpharmacotherapyrivastigminesystematic reviewvascular cognitive impairmentvascular dementia

Identifiers

PMID30688266
PMCPMC6375033
OpenAlexW2913713006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.