Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32523978›Full record

ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2020

The design, evaluation, and reporting on non-pharmacological, cognition-oriented treatments for older adults: Results of a survey of experts.

Sharon Sanz Simon, Mary Castellani, Sylvie Belleville, Tzvi Dwolatzky, Benjamin M Hampstead, Alex Bahar-Fuchs

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Effectiveness of Cognitive Interventions in Older Adults: A Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Sharon Sanz SimonCognitive Neuroscience Division Department of Neurology Columbia University New York New York.
Mary CastellaniAcademic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age Department of Psychiatry University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia.
Sylvie BellevillePsychology Department Université de Montréal Montreal Canada.
Tzvi DwolatzkyRambam Health Care Campus and Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Haifa Israel.
Benjamin M HampsteadMental Health Service VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System Ann Arbor Michigan.
Alex Bahar-FuchsAcademic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age Department of Psychiatry University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal · CATechnion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCognitive decline and dementia significantly affect independence and quality of life in older adults; therefore, it is critical to identify effective cognition-oriented treatments (COTs; eg, cognitive training, rehabilitation) that can help maintain or enhance cognitive functioning in older adults, as well as reduce dementia risk or alleviate symptoms associated with pathological processes.

methodsThe Cognitive Intervention Design Evaluation and Reporting (CIDER), a working group from the Non-Pharmacological Interventions Professional Interest Area (NPI-PIA) of the Alzheimer's Association conducted as survey in 2017 with experts in COTs worldwide. The survey's aims were three-fold: (1) determine the common attitudes, beliefs, and practices of experts involved in the COTs research targeting older people; (2) identify areas of relative agreement and disagreement among experts in the field; and (3) offer a critical review of the literature, including recommendations for future research.

resultsThe survey identified several areas of agreements among experts on critical features of COTs, and on study design and outcome measures. Nevertheless, there were some areas with relative disagreement. Critically, expert opinions were not always supported by scientific evidence, suggesting that methodologic improvements are needed regarding design, implementation, and reporting of COTs. There was a clear consensus that COTs provide benefits and should be offered to cognitively unimpaired older adults, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and mild dementia, but opinions differed for moderate and severe dementia. In addition, there is no consensus on the potential role of COTs in dementia prevention, indicating that future research should prioritize this aspect. DISCUSSION: Evidence of COTs in older adults is encouraging, but additional evidence is needed to enhance dementia prevention. Consensus building and guidelines in the field are critical to improve and accelerate the development of high-quality evidence for COTs in cognitively unimpaired older adults, and those with MCI and dementia.

Indexed as

agingAlzheimer's diseasecognitive interventioncognitive rehabilitationcognitive stimulationcognitive trainingdementiamild cognitive impairment

Identifiers

PMID32523978
PMCPMC7276188
OpenAlexW3033840761

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.