Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25651439›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2015

Systematic review of strengths and limitations of randomized controlled trials for non-pharmacological interventions in mild cognitive impairment: focus on Alzheimer's disease.

T Horr, B Messinger-Rapport, J A Pillai

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T HorrJ.A. Pillai, MBBS, PhD, Staff Neurologist, Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 9500 Euclid Ave / U10, Cleveland, OH 44195, Tel: 216 636 9467, Fax: 216 445 7013, E-mail: pillaij@ccf.org.
B Messinger-Rapport
J A Pillai
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-pharmacological interventions may improve cognition and quality of life, reduce disruptive behaviors, slow progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to dementia, and delay institutionalization. It is important to look at their trial designs as well as outcomes to understand the state of the evidence supporting non-pharmacological interventions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). An analysis of trial design strengths and limitations may help researchers clarify treatment effect and design future studies of non-pharmacological interventions for MCI related to AD.

methodsA systematic review of the methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) targeting physical activity, cognitive interventions, and socialization among subjects with MCI in AD reported until March 2014 was undertaken. The primary outcome was CONSORT 2010 reporting quality. Secondary outcomes were qualitative assessments of specific methodology problems.

results23 RCT studies met criteria for this review. Eight focused on physical activity, fourteen on cognitive interventions, and one on the effects of socialization. Most studies found a benefit with the intervention compared to control. CONSORT reporting quality of physical activity interventions was higher than that of cognitive interventions. Reporting quality of recent studies was higher than older studies, particularly with respect to sample size, control characteristics, and methodology of intervention training and delivery. However, the heterogeneity of subjects identified as having MCI and variability in interventions and outcomes continued to limit generalizability.

conclusionsThe role for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI is promising. Future studies of RCTs for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI related to AD may benefit by addressing design limitations.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitionCognitive DysfunctionHumansInstitutionalizationQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25651439
PMCPMC12877530
OpenAlexW2062745761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.