Use of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Tricco, Andrea C ^a   Soobiah, Charlene ^a   Lillie, Erin ^a   Perrier, Laure ^a   Chen, Maggie H ^a   Hemmelgarn, Brenda ^b   Majumdar, Sumit R ^c,d   Straus, Sharon E ^a,d  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DONEPEZIL; GALANTAMINE; MEMANTINE; NOOTROPIC AGENT; PLACEBO; RIVASTIGMINE;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT; NOOTROPIC AGENTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84872712798     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-25     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Chertkow H. Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: introduction. Introducing a series based on the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia. CMAJ 2008, 178:316-321. 2211335, 18227452.
2. Ward A, Arrighi HM, Michels S, Cedarbaum JM. Mild cognitive impairment: disparity of incidence and prevalence estimates. Alzheimers Dement 2012, 8:14-21. 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.002, 22265588.
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Dementia: Supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care http://www.nice org uk/nicemedia/live/10998/30318/30318.pdf [2011 NICE clinical guideline 42], National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
4. Hansen RA, Gartlehner G, Webb AP, Morgan LC, Moore CG, Jonas DE. Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging 2008, 3(2):211-225. 2546466,2546466, 18686744.
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339:b2535. 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 2714657, 19622551.
6. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005, 53:695-699. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x, 15817019.
7. Kalbe E, Kessler J, Calabrese P, Smith R, Passmore AP, Brand M, Bullock R. DemTect: a new, sensitive cognitive screening test to support the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004, 19:136-143. 10.1002/gps.1042, 14758579.
8. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:944-952. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012, 19230612.
9. SysRev Tool www.ktclearinghouse.ca[2011, Toronto Canada].
10. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174. 10.2307/2529310, 843571.
11. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011, Oxford: Wiley, Higgins JPT, Green S, www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Draft Risk of Bias Tool 2011, Oxford: Wiley, http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources-review-authors.
13. Wells G, Shea BJ, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses 2011, Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, Alderson P, Glasziou P, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:395-400. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012, 21194891.
15. Santaguida P, Raina P, Ismaila A. The development of the McHarm quality assessment scale for adverse events Hamilton, [http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/epc/mcharm.pdf].
16. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7:177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2, 3802833.
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21:1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186, 12111919.
18. Littell JH, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis 2008, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19. Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schwarzer G. Assessing the sensitivity of meta-analysis to selection bias: a multiple imputation approach. Biometrics 2011, 67:1066-1072. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01498.x, 21039395.
20. The bugs project The bugs project: Winbugs 2011, Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit, http://www.mrc-bsu cam ac uk/bugs/winbugs/contents.shtml, The bugs project.
21. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004, 23:3105-3124. 10.1002/sim.1875, 15449338.