↓ Skip to main content

A double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over clinical trial of DONepezil In Posterior cortical atrophy due to underlying Alzheimer's Disease: DONIPAD study

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over clinical trial of DONepezil In Posterior cortical atrophy due to underlying Alzheimer's Disease: DONIPAD study
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13195-018-0363-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Basil H. Ridha, Sebastian Crutch, Dawn Cutler, Christopher Frost, William Knight, Suzie Barker, Norah Epie, Elizabeth K. Warrington, Riitta Kukkastenvehmas, Jane Douglas, Martin N. Rossor

Abstract

The study investigated whether donepezil exerts symptomatic benefit in patients with posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), an atypical variant of Alzheimer's disease. A single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over clinical trial was performed to assess the efficacy of donepezil in patients with PCA. Each patient received either donepezil (5 mg once daily in the first 6 weeks and 10 mg once daily in the second 6 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks. After a 2-week washout period, each patient received the other treatment arm during the following 12 weeks followed by another 2-week washout period. The primary outcome was the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures were five neuropsychological tests reflecting parieto-occipital function. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. For each outcome measure, carry-over effects were first assessed. If present, then analysis was restricted to the first 12-week period. Otherwise, the standard approach to the analysis of a 2 × 2 cross-over trial was used. Eighteen patients (13 females) were recruited (mean age 61.6 years). There was a protocol violation in one patient, who subsequently withdrew from the study due to gastrointestinal side effects. There was statistically significant (p < 0.05) evidence of a carry-over effect on MMSE. Therefore, the analysis of treatment effect on MMSE was restricted to the first 12-week period. Treatment effect at 6 weeks was statistically significant (difference = 2.5 in favour of donepezil, 95% CI 0.1 to 5.0, p < 0.05). Treatment effect at 12 weeks was close, but not statistically significant (difference = 2.0 in favour of donepezil, 95% CI -0.1 to 4.5, p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant treatment effects on any of the five neuropsychological tests, except for digit span at 12 weeks (higher by 0.5 digits in favour of placebo, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.9). Gastrointestinal side effects occurred most frequently, affecting 13/18 subjects (72%), and were the cause of study discontinuation in one subject. Nightmares and vivid dreams occurred in 8/18 subjects (44%), and were statistically more frequent during treatment with donepezil. In this small study, there was no statistically significant treatment effect of donepezil on the primary outcome measure (MMSE score at 12 weeks) in PCA patients, who appear to be particularly susceptible to the development of nightmares and vivid dreams when treated. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22636071 . Retrospectively registered 19 May 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 28 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Neuroscience 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 29 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,160,200
of 24,067,703 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#456
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,066
of 330,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,067,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.