StudyDesignSample sizeInterventionReason for exclusion
Anand et al., 199695pooled data analysis566RIV vs. placebono systematic literature search
Farlow et al., 200396pooled analysis of 3 placebo-controlled trials3550RIV vs. placeboselection bias
Forette et al., 199997RCT114RIV vs. placebohigh differential loss to follow up; no ITT analysis
Geldmacher et al., 200398pooled data analysis1115DON vs. placeboselection bias
*Gillette-Guyonnet et al., 200583Cohort study486AChEI vs no AChEIinsufficient drug exposure data
*Knapp et al., 199468, 8688randomized, double- blind, placebo- controlled, parallel group trial663TAC vs. placebohigh loss to follow up
Pratt et al., 200299pooled data analysis1920DON vs. placebono systematic literature search
Sano et al., 2003100pooled data analysis825GAL vs. placebopooled data, trials not identical; no systematic literature search
Stahl et al., 2004101pooled data analysis1698GAL vs. placebono systematic literature search
*Wong et al., 199967RCT100TAC vs. placebohigh loss to follow up
*Wood et al., 199469RCT154TAC vs. placebohigh loss to follow up

* Poor quality rating for efficacy but included for adverse events

From: Appendix D. Characteristics of Excluded Studies

Cover of Drug Class Review: Alzheimer's Drugs
Drug Class Review: Alzheimer's Drugs: Final Report [Internet].
Hansen RA, Gartlehner G, Kaufer DJ, et al.
Portland (OR): Oregon Health & Science University; 2006 Jun.
Copyright © 2006, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

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