Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lack of Evidence for the Efficacy of Memantine in Mild Alzheimer Disease

Schneider, Lon S.·2011·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We directly assessed the clinical trials' evidence for memantine's efficacy in mild Alzheimer disease (AD). Memantine is indicated in the United States and Europe for moderate to severe AD, which is diagnosed if a patient has a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of less than 15 or less than 20, respectively. Yet memantine is very frequently prescribed for mild AD and mild cognitive impairment, and a manufacturer-sponsored meta-analysis claimed its efficacy in mild AD. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: Manufacturer-sponsored meta-analyses, registries, presentations, and publications were systematically searched for randomized placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials of memantine in patients with mild to moderate AD. The trials' characteristics and outcomes were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Meta-analyses were performed as inverse variance-weighted averages of mean differences using fixed-effects models. Summary results for patients with mild AD were obtained by contrasting the summary results for patients with mild or moderate AD with the summary results for the subset of patients with moderate AD. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three trials were identified that included 431 patients with mild AD (ie, with MMSE scores of 20-23) and 697 patients with moderate AD (ie, with MMSE scores of 10-19). There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo on any outcome for patients with mild AD, either within any trial or when data were combined: mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus caregiver's input (CIBIC-plus), the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-activities of daily living (ADCS-ADL) scale, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) were -0.17 (95% CI, -1.60 to 1.26), -0.09 (95% CI, -0.30 to 0.12), 0.62 (95% CI, -1.64 to 2.71), and 0.09 (95% CI, -2.11 to 2.29), respectively. For patients with moderate AD, there were small differences on the ADAS-cog and the CIBIC-plus, -1.33 (95% CI, -2.28 to -0.38) and -0.16 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.00), respectively, but no differences on the ADCS-ADL scale (-0.57 [95% CI, -1.75 to 0.60]) or the NPI (0.25 [95% CI, -1.48 to 1.99]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite its frequent off-label use, evidence is lacking for a benefit of memantine in mild AD, and there is meager evidence for its efficacy in moderate AD. Prospective trials are needed to further assess the potential for efficacy of memantine either alone or added to cholinesterase inhibitors in mild and moderate AD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneurol.2011.69

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, L. S.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2011-08-01
Volume
68
Issue
8
Pages
991
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101901330
Cited by
275
References
6
FWCI
19.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lack of Evidence for the Efficacy of Memantine in Mild Alzheimer Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneurol.2011.69
The paper
Schneider, L. S. (2011). Lack of Evidence for the Efficacy of Memantine in Mild Alzheimer Disease. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2011.69

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.