SynthesisEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Antidementia drugs and nursing home placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European geriatric medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Migraine as a risk factor for retinal vascular events and maculopathies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 47 million individuals.The journal of headache and pain · 2026Pooled it
- Symptomatic treatment for Alzheimer disease: current evidence and future directions.Nature reviews. Neurology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe association between antidementia drugs (ADDs) use and the risk of nursing home placement (NHP) remains inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ADDs, including cholinesterase inhibitors (CEIs) and memantine, on NHP among individuals with dementia.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to 16 March 2024 and updated on 25 August 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies investigating the use of ADDs and NHP were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model.
resultsOf 1,373 records, three RCTs and nine observational studies were included, encompassing different comparators. Meta-analyses were conducted separately by study design. In RCT, the single trial comparing any ADDs versus non-use (N = 1; donepezil vs placebo) showed no significant difference in NHP. In head-to-head RCT comparisons, one trial suggested a non-significant trend toward higher NHP risk with memantine versus donepezil. Among observational studies, a meta-analysis of five observational studies suggested a lower NHP risk with any ADDs in Alzheimer's disease (pooled HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.32-0.58, I
conclusionsRCTs, rated as low-certainty evidence, suggest that ADDs may have no effect on NHP, whereas observational studies, rated as very low-certainty evidence, suggest that ADDs may be associated with a reduced risk of NHP among individuals with dementia. Given the overall uncertainty, high-quality, adequately powered prospective trials with longer follow-up are required to clarify these associations and to assess whether a causal relationship exists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41528688What 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.