Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Donepezil in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease in the Nursing Home Setting

Tariot, Pierre N., Cummings, Jeffrey L., Katz, Ira R., Mintzer, Jacobo, Perdomo, Carlos A., Schwam, Elias M., Whalen, Edward·2001·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of donepezil in the management of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) residing in nursing home facilities. DESIGN: Twenty-four-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-seven nursing homes across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eight nursing home patients with a diagnosis of probable or possible AD, or AD with cerebrovascular disease; mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score 14.4; mean age 85.7. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version (NPI-NH). Secondary efficacy measures were the Clinical Dementia Rating (Nursing Home Version)-Sum of the Boxes (CDR-SB), MMSE, and the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS). Safety was monitored by physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of donepezil- and 74% of placebo-treated patients completed the trial. Eleven percent of donepezil- and 18% of placebo-treated patients withdrew because of AEs. Mean NPI-NH 12-item total scores improved relative to baseline for both groups, with no significant differences observed between the groups at any assessment. Mean change from baseline CDR-SB total score improved significantly with donepezil compared with placebo at Week 24 (P < .05). The change in CDR-SB total score was not influenced by age. Differences in mean change from baseline on the MMSE favored donepezil over placebo at Weeks 8, 16, and 20 (P < .05). No significant differences were observed between the groups on the PSMS. Overall rates of occurrence and severity of AEs were similar between the two groups (97% placebo, 96% donepezil). Gastrointestinal AEs occurred more frequently in donepezil-treated patients. In general, AEs were similar in older and younger donepezil-treated patients, with the majority of patients experiencing only AEs that were transient and mild or moderate in severity. Weight loss was reported as an AE more frequently in older patients, although a loss at last visit of >or=7% of screening weight occurred at the same rate in older and younger patients (9% of donepezil- and 6% of placebo-treated patients). No significant differences between groups in vital sign changes, bradycardia, or rates of clinically significant laboratory or ECG abnormalities were observed. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with donepezil maintained or improved in cognition and overall dementia severity in contrast to placebo-treated patients who declined during the 6-month treatment period. The safety and tolerability profile was comparable with that reported in outpatient studies of donepezil. These findings also suggest that advanced age, comorbid illnesses, and high concomitant medication usage should not be barriers to donepezil treatment. Given the apparent improvement in behavior in the placebo group, and the high use of concomitant medications in both groups, the impact of donepezil on behavior in the nursing home setting is unresolved and merits further investigation. In summary, effects on cognition, overall dementia severity, and safety and tolerability findings are consistent with previous findings in outpatients and support the use of donepezil in patients with AD who reside in nursing homes.

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 · 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.t01-1-49266.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Tariot, P. N., Cummings, J. L., Katz, I. R., Mintzer, J., Perdomo, C. A., Schwam, E. M., & Whalen, E.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12
Volume
49
Issue
12
Pages
1590-1599
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2064887457
Cited by
370
References
5
FWCI
14.79
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: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Donepezil in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease in the Nursing Home Setting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.t01-1-49266.x
The paper
Tariot, P. N., Cummings, J. L., Katz, I. R., Mintzer, J., Perdomo, C. A., Schwam, E. M., & Whalen, E. (2001). A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Donepezil in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease in the Nursing Home Setting. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.t01-1-49266.x

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.