Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quetiapine and rivastigmine and cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial

Open access
Ballard, Clive, Margallo-Lana, Marisa, Juszczak, Edmund, Douglas, Simon, Swann, Alan, Thomas, Alan, O'Brien, John, Everratt, Anna, Sadler, Stuart, Maddison, Clare, Lee, Lesley, Bannister, Carol, Elvish, Ruth, Jacoby, Robin·2005·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the respective efficacy of quetiapine and rivastigmine for agitation in people with dementia in institutional care and to evaluate these treatments with respect to change in cognitive performance. DESIGN: Randomised double blind (clinician, patient, outcomes assessor) placebo controlled trial. SETTING: Care facilities in the north east of England. PARTICIPANTS: 93 patients with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and clinically significant agitation. INTERVENTION: Atypical antipsychotic (quetiapine), cholinesterase inhibitor (rivastigmine), or placebo (double dummy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield agitation inventory) and cognition (severe impairment battery) at baseline and at six weeks and 26 weeks. The primary outcome was agitation inventory at six weeks. RESULTS: 31 patients were randomised to each group, and 80 (86%) started treatment (25 rivastigmine, 26 quetiapine, 29 placebo), of whom 71 (89%) tolerated the maximum protocol dose (22 rivastigmine, 23 quetiapine, 26 placebo). Compared with placebo, neither group showed significant differences in improvement on the agitation inventory either at six weeks or 26 weeks. Fifty six patients scored > 10 on the severe impairment battery at baseline, 46 (82%) of whom were included in the analysis at six week follow up (14 rivastigmine, 14 quetiapine, 18 placebo). For quetiapine the change in severe impairment battery score from baseline was estimated as an average of -14.6 points (95% confidence interval -25.3 to -4.0) lower (that is, worse) than in the placebo group at six weeks (P = 0.009) and -15.4 points (-27.0 to -3.8) lower at 26 weeks (P = 0.01). The corresponding changes with rivastigmine were -3.5 points (-13.1 to 6.2) lower at six weeks (P = 0.5) and -7.5 points (-21.0 to 6.0) lower at 26 weeks (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Neither quetiapine nor rivastigmine are effective in the treatment of agitation in people with dementia in institutional care. Compared with placebo, quetiapine is associated with significantly greater cognitive decline.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.38369.459988.8f

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 315

Metadata

Authors
Ballard, C., Margallo-Lana, M., Juszczak, E., Douglas, S., Swann, A., Thomas, A., O'Brien, J., Everratt, A., Sadler, S., Maddison, C., Lee, L., Bannister, C., Elvish, R., & Jacoby, R.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-02-18
Volume
330
Issue
7496
Pages
874
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W2114293963
Cited by
315
References
4
FWCI
18.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.bmj.org/licenses/tdm/1.0/terms-and-conditions.html (tdm)

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: Quetiapine and rivastigmine and cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38369.459988.8f
The paper
Ballard, C., Margallo-Lana, M., Juszczak, E., Douglas, S., Swann, A., Thomas, A., O'Brien, J., Everratt, A., Sadler, S., Maddison, C., Lee, L., Bannister, C., Elvish, R., & Jacoby, R. (2005). Quetiapine and rivastigmine and cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38369.459988.8f

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.