ArticleNeural regeneration research2019
Comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for treating vascular cognitive impairment: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of post-stroke cognitive impairment therapies: an umbrella review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Ginkgo Biloba as a niche theme cognitive enhancer agent, 1420 dokumen of Scopus database. A bibliometric study from 1988 to 2024.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Electroacupuncture Preconditioning Ameliorates the Ischemic Microenvironment to Improve Long-Term Potentiation in Chronic Cerebral Hypoperfusion Rats With MGE Neural Progenitor Transplantation.Neural plasticity · 2025Article
- Pharmacotherapy for Poststroke Cognitive Impairment and Poststroke Cognitive Impairment With Dementia: A Review.Stroke research and treatment · 2025Review
- Clinical practice guidelines on addressing cognitive impairment in vascular dementias.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Physical Exercise Counteracts Aging-Associated White Matter Demyelination Causing Cognitive Decline.Aging and disease · 2024Review
- Extrasynaptic NMDA receptors in acute and chronic excitotoxicity: implications for preventive treatments of ischemic stroke and late-onset Alzheimer's disease.Molecular neurodegeneration · 2023Review
- Basic information about memantine and its treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other clinical applications.Ibrain · 2023Review
- A Case of Persistent Postictal and Inter-ictal Delirium.Kansas journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Trials of New Drugs for Vascular Cognitive Impairment and Vascular Dementia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Therapeutic effects of dental pulp stem cells on vascular dementia in rat models.Neural regeneration research · 2021Article
- Possible mechanisms of lycopene amelioration of learning and memory impairment in rats with vascular dementia.Neural regeneration research · 2020Article
- Canadian Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD)5: Guidelines for management of vascular cognitive impairment.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.