↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hydergine for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 X users
2 Wikipedia pages
1 Redditor


26 Dimensions

Readers on

107 Mendeley
Hydergine for dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000359
Pubmed ID

Lon Schneider, Jason T Olin, Adrian Novit, Susan Luczak


Currently hydergine is used almost exclusively for treating patients with either dementia, or 'age-related' cognitive symptoms. Since the early eighties there have been over a dozen more clinical trials, yet hydergine's efficacy remains uncertain. Although previous reviews offer generally favorable support for hydergine's efficacy, they were, however, limited by a bias with respect to the particular clinical studies chosen (eg, the inclusion of case reports, and uncontrolled trials), and by authors' impressionistic assessments of results. Not surprisingly, there has been a lack of consensus among reviewers with regard to the efficacy of hydergine. In 1994, a meta-analysis was published by the present reviewers who reported that overall, hydergine was more effective than placebo. However they also observed that the statistical evidence for efficacy in 'possible or probable Alzheimer's disease' patients was so modest that one additional statistically non-significant trial would have reduced the results to non significance. Because of uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of hydergine, the goals of this overview were to assess its overall effect in patients with possible dementia, and to investigate potential moderators of an effect. The Cochrane Dementia Group Register of Clinical Trials was searched using the terms 'hydergine', 'ergoloids,' 'ergoloid mesylates,' 'dihydroergocristine,' 'dihydroergocryptine,' 'dihydroergotoxine,' and 'dihydroergocornine. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two proprietary databases were searched also. Published reviews were inspected for further sources. Trials to be included must be randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, and unconfounded comparisons of hydergine with placebo for a treatment duration of greater than 1 week in subjects with dementia or symptoms consistent with dementia. Data were extracted independently by the reviewers, pooled where appropriate and possible, and the pooled odds ratios (95%CI) or the average differences (95%CI) were estimated. Where possible, intention-to-treat data were used. Outcomes of interest included clinical global impressions of change and comprehensive rating scales. Potential moderating variables of a treatment effect included: inpatient/outpatient status, trial duration, age, sex, medication dose, publication year, and diagnostic grouping. There were a total of nineteen trials that met inclusion criteria and that had data sufficient for analysis. Thirteen trials reported sufficient information to use a global rating of improvement and nine trials provided information on a comprehensive rating scale. Three trials provided both outcome measures. It was not possible to use many of the published results in a combined analysis owing to the lack of sufficient data to perform statistical analyses. For the twelve trials that used global ratings, there was a significant effect favoring hydergine (OR 3.78, 95%CI, 2.72-5.27). For the nine trials that used comprehensive ratings, there was a significant mean difference favoring hydergine (WMD 0.96, 95%CI, 0. 54-1.37). Hydergine was well tolerated in these trials, with 78% of randomized subjects available for data analyses. Greater effect sizes on global ratings were associated with younger age, and possibly higher dose, although most of the subgroup analyses were statistically insignificant. As in an earlier systematic review, we found hydergine to show significant treatment effects when assessed by either global ratings or comprehensive rating scales (based here on a smaller set of trials than in the earlier published systematic review because trials were required to have data that could conform with MetaView, the Cochrane Collaboration statistics software). The small number of trials available for analysis, however, limited the ability of subgroup analyses to identify statistically significant modera

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Psychology 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 39 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2023.
All research outputs
of 24,262,436 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 39,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,262,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 39,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.