ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness of Rivastigmine and Donepezil in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Therapeutic and Diagnostic Roles of MSC-Derived Exosomes in Alzheimer's Disease.Brain and behavior · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a retrospective cohort study comparing the effectiveness of rivastigmine and donepezil in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Of the 250 subjects, 127 (50.8%) were men, while 123 (49.2%) were women. Baseline cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). The results showed that 83 (33.2%) patients improved, 84 (33.6%) remained stable, and 83 (33.2%) experienced cognitive decline. The difference between the two groups was not significant with respect to cognitive outcomes (Chi-square = 0.08, df = 2, N = 250, p = 0.96). However, rivastigmine was associated with a higher rate of side effects (65, or 52%), which could hinder adherence. Both groups had an average of 1.48 hospitalization episodes per patient. Biomarker analysis suggested that 144 (57.6%) of patients tested positive for amyloid on positron emission tomography (PET) scans. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis data, illustrated through mean values, showed amyloid beta at 546.38 pg/mL and tau at 219.85 pg/mL - both linked to cognitive decline. Higher levels of tau were significantly correlated with greater cognitive decline. Statistically, there were significant differences between the treatment groups in terms of MMSE scores and CSF biomarkers (p < 0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference in cognitive outcomes between the drugs, subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in baseline MMSE scores and CSF biomarker levels (p < 0.05), suggesting heterogeneity in disease severity. Therefore, personalized strategies for managing patients with AD should be constructed based on the drug's side effect profile, comorbidities, and biomarker status. Future studies should focus on biomarker-directed and combination therapies to improve treatment efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.