Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28726168›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2017

Cognitive Interventions for Cognitively Healthy, Mildly Impaired, and Mixed Samples of Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials.

Catherine M Mewborn, Cutter A Lindbergh, L Stephen Miller

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Catherine M MewbornDepartment of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. cmewborn@uga.edu.
Cutter A LindberghDepartment of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
L Stephen MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
University of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive interventions may improve cognition, delay age-related cognitive declines, and improve quality of life for older adults. The current meta-analysis was conducted to update and expand previous work on the efficacy of cognitive interventions for older adults and to examine the impact of key demographic and methodological variables. EBSCOhost and Embase online databases and reference lists were searched to identify relevant randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy or mildly impaired (MCI) older adults (60+ years). Interventions trained a single cognitive domain (e.g., memory) or were multi-domain training, and outcomes were assessed immediately post-intervention using standard neuropsychological tests. In total, 279 effects from 97 studies were pooled based on a random-effects model and expressed as Hedges' g (unbiased). Overall, results indicated that cognitive interventions produce a small, but significant, improvement in the cognitive functioning of older adults, relative to active and passive control groups (g = 0.298, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.248-0.347). These results were confirmed using multi-level analyses adjusting for nesting of effect sizes within studies (g = 0.362, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.275, 0.449). Age, education, and cognitive status (healthy vs. MCI) were not significant moderators. Working memory interventions proved most effective (g = 0.479), though memory, processing speed, and multi-domain interventions also significantly improved cognition. Effects were larger for directly trained outcomes but were also significant for non-trained outcomes (i.e., "transfer effects"). Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed. This project was pre-registered with PROSPERO (#42016038386).

Indexed as

CognitionCognition DisordersCognitive AgingHumansLearningRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCognitive interventionCognitive trainingMeta-analysisOlder adultsRandomized-controlled trialsRCT

Identifiers

PMID28726168
OpenAlexW2739032449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.