Trial reportAlzheimer disease and associated disorders
Effects of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on aggressive behavior among people with dementia: Secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We tested the efficacy of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation on aggressive behavior among people with dementia. We used secondary data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Analyses included 402 individuals with dementia. We compared group differences in mean aggressive behavior change at baseline vs six (primary), 12, and 18 months (secondary outcome). We used independent samples t-tests with the aggressive behavior item from the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire. We stratified group differences by ApoE-ε4 status, gender, baseline aggressive behavior, and dementia severity. All tests favored DHA but no differences reached statistical significance. For example, the group differences between baseline and month 6 aggressive behavior were 0.11 (p=0.22). Group differences nearly reached statistical significance with clinically important effect sizes when excluding participants without baseline aggressive behavior. Despite obtaining null results, these trends suggest avenues for future research that includes participants with higher baseline aggressive behavior levels and more sensitive outcome scales.
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.