↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Piracetam for dementia or cognitive impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Piracetam for dementia or cognitive impairment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2004
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leon Flicker, John Grimley Evans

Abstract

To determine the clinical efficacy of piracetam for the features of dementia or cognitive impairment, classified according to the major subtypes of dementia: vascular, Alzheimer's disease or mixed vascular and Alzheimer's disease, or unclassified dementia, or cognitive impairment not fulfilling the criteria for dementia. The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 10 November 2000 using the term spiracetam, nootropic and 2-Oxo-1-pyrrolidine. In addition the pharmaceutical company responsible for marketing most of the piracetam worldwide, UCB Pharma, provided a comprehensive list of abstracts, which included many unpublished studies. As many of these unpublished, placebo-controlled studies will be reviewed as possible. All unconfounded trials specified as randomized in which treatment with piracetam was administered for more than a day and compared with placebo in patients with dementia of Alzheimer type, vascular dementia,or mixed vascular and Alzheimer's disease, or unclassified dementia, or cognitive impairment not fulfilling the criteria for dementia. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Each study was independently verified as fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were rated for methodological quality by assessment of blinding and loss before analysis as described by Jadad et al. (1996). Studies were pooled if appropriate and possible, and the pooled odds ratios (95%CI) or the average differences (95%CI) were estimated. Where possible, intention-to-treat analyses were undertaken. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine if successive elimination of those studies performing most poorly on these quality criteria changed the effect estimate. Unfortunately, many of the studies were of cross-over design and first-phase data were unavailable, or could not be extracted. Global Impression of Change was the only outcoeme for which there was a significant volume of evidence from the pooled data. There was evidence of heterogeneity in the results from the individual studies, chi-square test = 20.8 (df=5). Using a fixed effects model the odds ratio for improvement in the piracetam group compared with the placebo group was 3.55, [95% CI][2.45, 5.16]. If a random effects model was used the odds ratio was 3.47 [1.29, 9.30]. If one single-blind study was excluded, the fixed effects model yielded an odds ratio of 3.36 [2.29, 4.99] and if a random effects model was applied then the odds ratio was 2.89 [1.01, 8.24]. The evidence of effects on cognition and other measures, was inconclusive. At this stage the evidence available from the published literature does not support the use of piracetam in the treatment of people with dementia or cognitive impairment. Although effects were found on global impression of change, no benefit was shown by any of the more specific measures. There is a need for further evaluation of piracetam by : 1) Obtaining the data from the identified studies for an individual patient database review, 2) Performing a randomized trial of piracetam in patients with diagnoses made by currently accepted diagnostic criteria. The trial should extend over for a period of at least 6 months and preferably longer. Specific cognitive instruments which are sensitive to change, Clinician Global Impression of Change, levels of dependency and caregiver quality of life scales should also be incorporated in such a study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 19%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Other 11 7%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 28%
Psychology 12 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 35 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 208. 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 28 February 2021.
All research outputs
#99,260
of 17,365,229 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#532
of 141,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,365,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 141,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.