ReviewBrain sciences2026
Cognitive Stimulation and Training in People with Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease: A Scoping Review.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesCognitive stimulation and cognitive training are used as non-pharmacological approaches to support people living with Alzheimer's disease, but Alzheimer-specific evidence is dispersed across heterogeneous intervention formats. This scoping review mapped structured cognitive stimulation and training interventions evaluated in people with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and summarized the cognitive, emotional, functional, and follow-up outcomes reported.
methodsThe review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, SciELO, PEDro, LILACS, and Google Scholar were searched on 24 February 2025 for studies published between January 2015 and 24 February 2025 in English, Portuguese, or Spanish. Intervention studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records and charted data, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.
resultsOf 352 records identified, five studies involving 245 participants were included. Interventions comprised virtual-reality cognitive stimulation, conventional cognitive training, group reminiscence therapy, a multicomponent music-reminiscence-reality-orientation intervention, and computerized cognitive training. In the limited technology-assisted evidence, statistically significant changes were reported in global cognition or selected memory, language, attention, and executive outcomes. Conventional cognitive training showed signals of improvement in initiative and temporary stabilization of memory, whereas reminiscence-based interventions primarily reported changes in depressive and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Where longer follow-up was available, benefits diminished over time.
conclusionsThe mapped evidence suggests that structured cognitive stimulation and training may produce short-term, outcome-specific benefits in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Given the small and heterogeneous evidence base, these findings represent modality-related patterns within the included studies and should not be interpreted as evidence of comparative effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.