Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32066716›Full record

SynthesisTranslational psychiatry2020

Do nonpharmacological interventions prevent cognitive decline? a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shuqi Yao, Yun Liu, Xiaoyan Zheng, Yu Zhang, Shuai Cui, Chunzhi Tang, Liming Lu, Nenggui Xu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Shuqi Yao *South China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China.
Yun Liu *South China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China.
Xiaoyan ZhengSouth China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China.
Yu ZhangSouth China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China.
Shuai CuiSouth China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China.
Chunzhi TangSouth China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China. jordan664@163.com.
Liming LuSouth China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China. lulimingleon@126.com.
Nenggui XuSouth China Research Center for Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Medical College of Acu-Moxi and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510006, Guangdong Province, P. R. China. ngxu8018@163.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Guangdong Natural Science Foundation) 2016A030310290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At present, prevention is particularly important when there is no effective treatment for cognitive decline. Since the adverse events of pharmacological interventions counterbalance the benefits, nonpharmacological approaches seem desirable to prevent cognitive decline. To our knowledge, no meta-analyses have been published on nonpharmacological interventions preventing cognitive decline. To investigate whether nonpharmacological interventions play a role in preventing cognitive decline among older people, we searched related trials up to March 31, 2019, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials and the Cochrane library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they enrolled participants older than 60 years of age who had a risk of cognitive decline, and the interventions were nonpharmacological. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence. Heterogeneity was quantified with I

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionAgedHumans

Identifiers

PMID32066716
PMCPMC7026127

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.