Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 921

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

A 5-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine in AD

Tariot, P.N., Solomon, P.R., Morris, J.C., Kershaw, P., Lilienfeld, S., Ding, C., the Galantamine USA- Study Group·2000·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of galantamine, using a slow dose escalation schedule of up to 8 weeks, in 978 patients with mild to moderate AD. METHODS: A 5-month multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Following a 4-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to one of four treatment arms: placebo or galantamine escalated to final maintenance doses of 8, 16, or 24 mg/day. Outcome measures included the cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog), the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus), the AD Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living inventory, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Standard safety evaluations and adverse event monitoring were carried out. RESULTS: After 5 months, the galantamine-placebo differences on ADAS-cog were 3.3 points for the 16 mg/day group and 3.6 points for the 24 mg/day group (p < 0.001 versus placebo, both doses). Compared with placebo, the galantamine 16- and 24-mg/day groups also had a significantly better outcome on CIBIC-plus, activities of daily living, and behavioral symptoms. Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were low in all galantamine groups (6 to 10%) and comparable with the discontinuation rate in the placebo group (7%). The incidence of adverse events in the galantamine groups, notably gastrointestinal symptoms, was low and most adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Galantamine 16 and 24 mg/day significantly benefits the cognitive, functional, and behavioral symptoms of AD as compared with placebo. Slow dose escalation appears to enhance the tolerability of galantamine, minimizing the incidence and severity of adverse events.

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 · 10.1212/wnl.54.12.2269

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 921

Metadata

Authors
Tariot, P. N., Solomon, P. R., Morris, J. C., Kershaw, P., Lilienfeld, S., Ding, C., & the Galantamine USA- Study Group
Venue
Neurology
Published
2000-06-27
Volume
54
Issue
12
Pages
2269-2276
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2117134611
Cited by
921
References
6
FWCI
44.60
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 5-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine in AD. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.54.12.2269
The paper
Tariot, P. N., Solomon, P. R., Morris, J. C., Kershaw, P., Lilienfeld, S., Ding, C., & the Galantamine USA- Study Group. (2000). A 5-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine in AD. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.54.12.2269

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.