Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30678665›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2019

Effects of dog-assisted therapy in adults with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jessica Hanae Zafra-Tanaka, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios, Walter Andree Tellez, Alvaro Taype-Rondan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
13.6field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 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. Pooled it
  13. Animal-assisted therapy for dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Benefits of Dog-Assisted Therapy in Patients with Dementia Residing in Aged Care Centers in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Agitation in dementia: Evidence-based consensus recommendations.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica Hanae Zafra-TanakaCRONICAS Center of Excellence for Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru.
Kevin Pacheco-BarriosUnidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru.
Walter Andree TellezSociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina Villarrealinos, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Lima, Peru.
Alvaro Taype-RondanUnidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru. alvaro.taype.r@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8758-0463
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola · PEFederico Villarreal National University · PEUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDog-assisted therapy (DAT) is a non-pharmacological intervention based on the interaction between patients and dogs, which has been proposed to help adults with dementia. However, evidence to support it is lacking. Thus, we aim to evaluate the effects of DAT on this population and to assess the certainty of the evidence of the RCTs estimates.

methodsA systematic search was performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) controlled studies published up to March 2018, which evaluated the beneficial and deleterious effects of DAT in adults with dementia. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and random effects meta-analyses were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed for RCTs estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018090434).

resultsTen studies (six RCTs and four QE controlled studies) were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no effect of DAT in daily life activities (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: -0.80 to 1.12), depression (SMD: -0.45; 95% CI: -2.81 to 1.91), agitation (SDM: -1.12; 95% CI: -2.67 to 0.43), quality of life (SDM: 0.16; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.73), and cognitive impairment (SDM: -0.52; 95% CI: -1.33 to 0.30), but it found a beneficial effect in apathy (1 study, n = 37, MD: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.36). All outcomes had a very low certainty of evidence according to GRADE methodology.

conclusionsRCTs evidence of very low certainty suggests that, in adults with dementia, DAT has no effect in daily life activities, depression, agitation, quality of life, and cognitive impairment, although one small study found an apparent beneficial effect in apathy. More well-designed and correctly reported studies are needed in order to provide a conclusion.

trial registrationCRD42018090434 (PROSPERO).

Indexed as

AdultAnimal Assisted TherapyAnimalsAnxietyCognitive DysfunctionDementiaDepressionDogsHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnimal-assisted therapyCognitive dysfunctionDementiaMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID30678665
PMCPMC6345014
OpenAlexW2928759593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.