TABLE 50Mixed-treatment comparison – ADAS-cog at 12–16 weeks (mean change from baseline; all measurement populations): input data

Evidence networkComparisonStudyWMD95% CI
Image ch3fu1.jpg
Donepezil vs placeboRogers et al. (1998)93−2.799−3.831 to −1.767
Burns et al. (1999)104−2.151−2.871 to −1.430
Homma et al. (2000)108−2.175−3.527 to −0.823
Nunez et al. (2003)111,112−0.050−1.782 to 1.682
Galantamine vs placeboRaskind et al. (2000)123−3.158−4.371 to −1.946
Tariot et al. (2000)125−2.225−3.042 to −1.408
Wilcock et al. (2000)127−2.848−3.829 to −1.867
Rockwood et al. (2001)124−1.600−2.704 to −0.496
Wilkinson and Murray (2001)128−2.246−3.872 to −0.620
Bullock et al. (2004)101−1.475−2.933 to −0.017
Brodaty et al. (2005)96−2.453−3.192 to −1.713
Rockwood et al. (2006)131−1.925−3.816 to −0.034
Rivastigmine vs placeboFeldman and Lane (2007)138−2.249−3.226 to −1.271
Winblad et al. (2007)140−0.911−1.817 to −0.006
Donepezil vs rivastigmineWilkinson et al. (2002)1450.150−1.561 to 1.861
Donepezil vs galantamineJones et al. (2004)146−2.225−4.131 to −0.319

From: 3, Assessment of clinical effectiveness

Cover of The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (Review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): A Systematic Review and Economic Model
The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (Review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): A Systematic Review and Economic Model.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.21.
Bond M, Rogers G, Peters J, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2012 Apr.
© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.