SynthesisZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2024
[Validation for people with dementia: innovation without evidence? : Systematic review].
Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValidation was an innovative approach to dealing with people with dementia that was supposed to reduce the incidence of challenging behavior. This effect, however, remains unclear to this day.
objectiveDoes validation reduce challenging behaviour in people with dementia? MATERIAL AND
methodSystematic review according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science. Description and critical appraisal of identified studies by two reviewers using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials.
resultsA total of five studies were identified. Only one showed a significant reduction in challenging behavior compared to the control group. All studies had a moderate to high risk of bias.
conclusionDespite the negative results, a positive effect of validation cannot be ruled out as the trials tested validation as an isolated treatment and not as an integrated part of daily care. In addition, blinding, which is common in clinical trials, is not an appropriate criterion for evaluating trials investigating interventions where the effects result exclusively from interpersonal interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38157032What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.