ReviewIBRO neuroscience reports2025
A meta-analysis update evaluating the treatment effects of donepezil alone versus donepezil combined with memantine for Alzheimer's disease.
Review in IBRO neuroscience reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Curcumin nanoformulations for modulating neuroinflammation and oxidative stress in Alzheimer's disease: blood-brain barrier transport, formulation strategies and therapeutic applications.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
- Fucosterol from marine algae: a multifunctional marine phytosterol with health benefits-from dietary component to functional ingredient.Food chemistry: X · 2026Review
- Distinct and Overlapping Neuroprotective Efficacy of Silk Lutein and Sericin-Derived Oligopeptides from Yellow Silk Cocoons in Rodent Models of AInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Challenges and Opportunities of Drug Delivery for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Article
- Alzheimer's Disease: From Molecular Pathogenesis to Disease-Modifying Therapies and Clinical Implementation in Aging Populations.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a significant global health problem, with ongoing debates about the most effective treatment approach. While donepezil monotherapy has been traditionally used, recent interest has focused on combining it with memantine. This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of donepezil monotherapy versus its combination with memantine for treating AD. Method: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to February 14, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing donepezil monotherapy with donepezil combined with memantine in AD patients were included. The quality of each selected study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) risk-of-bias tool. Data on cognitive function, measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results: A total of four RCTs, including 1930 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Analysis using a forest plot revealed no significant difference in MMSE scores between monotherapy and combination therapy (OR = 0.54, 95 % CI: 0.06-4.60, p > 0.05). However, SIB scores showed a significant improvement with combination therapy (OR = 7.00, 95 % CI: 1.13-43.24, p < 0.05). Both analyses exhibited high heterogeneity (I² = 72 % for MMSE; I² = 89 % for SIB). The funnel plots suggested minor publication bias for the MMSE outcomes, but some asymmetry was observed in the results for SIB. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that combination therapy with donepezil and memantine significantly benefits patients with severe cognitive impairment, as assessed by the SIB, compared to donepezil monotherapy. However, no significant advantage was observed in MMSE scores. The high heterogeneity among studies highlights the need for cautious interpretation and calls for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials to further elucidate the comparative efficacy of these two therapeutic approaches in Alzheimer's disease.
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.