MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388923404 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afad205

Cholinesterase inhibitors and falls, syncope and injuries in patients with cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4388923404 on OpenAlexaff
Manan Ahuja, Shailee Siddhpuria, Arian Karimi, Kaitlin Lewis, Eric Wong, Justin Lee, Christina Reppas‐Rindlisbacher, Emma Sood, Christopher Gabor, Christopher Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalantamineMedicineRivastigmineDonepezilDementiaMeta-analysisRelative riskNeurocognitiveInternal medicinePlaceboConfidence intervalAnesthesiaCognitionPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cholinesterase inhibitors are commonly used to treat patients with neurocognitive disorders, who often have an elevated risk of falling. Effective use of these medications requires a thoughtful assessment of risks and benefits. OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on previous reviews and determine the association between cholinesterase inhibitors and falls, syncope, fracture and accidental injuries in patients with neurocognitive disorders. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and AgeLine were systematically searched through March 2023 to identify all randomised controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine) in patients with cognitive impairment. Corresponding authors were contacted for additional data necessary for meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria consisted of adults ≥19 years, with a diagnosis of dementia, Parkinson's disease, mild cognitive impairment or traumatic brain injury. Data were extracted in duplicate for the aforementioned primary outcomes and all outcomes were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifty three studies (30 donepezil, 14 galantamine, 9 rivastigmine) were included providing data on 25, 399 patients. Cholinesterase inhibitors, compared to placebo, were associated with reduced risk of falls (risk ratio [RR] 0.84 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-0.96, P = 0.009]) and increased risk of syncope (RR 1.50 [95% CI = 1.02-2.21, P = 0.04]). There was no association with accidental injuries or fractures. CONCLUSION: In patients with neurocognitive disorders, cholinesterase inhibitors were associated with decreased risk of falls, increased risk of syncope and no association with accidental trauma or fractures. These findings will help clinicians better evaluate risks and benefits of cholinesterase inhibitors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207