Every row of the evidence table

No difference from waitlist control on the primary burden outcome or on mood, WHOQOL-Bref or productivity; only the CarerQoL-VAS quality-of-life score was higher in the intervention group. The trial recruited 93 of a 194 target.

Burden fell in both arms with no significant difference between the two platforms. There was no untreated control, so the within-arm improvement cannot be separated from time or attention.

No difference between health-system care, community-based care or usual care on either primary outcome. Caregiver self-efficacy did improve in both active arms.

No benefit and no harm: screening did not change family-member quality of life, preparedness or self-efficacy, and did not raise depression or anxiety. Only 5.1% screened positive.

The primary outcome did not improve. Emergency department visits and hospitalisations were lower (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.65), which is a secondary outcome.

Neither the combined package nor risk-factor modification beat health advice.

The control arm also received diet counselling and mild caloric restriction, so this is MIND against another active diet, not against usual eating. It is the only randomised test of the MIND diet here and it disagrees with the cohort evidence.

The control arm also received diet counselling and mild caloric restriction, so this is MIND against another active diet, not against usual eating. It is the only randomised test of the MIND diet here and it disagrees with the cohort evidence.

The intervention did not change any brain biomarker trajectory. Participants with lower baseline hippocampal volume did show a greater cognitive benefit.

A small improvement that did not reach significance (adjusted difference 0.06, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.128, p=0.055).

Neither the combined package nor risk-factor modification beat health advice.

The primary outcome did not move between groups. Attention and inhibitory control did improve (SMD 0.43), as did muscular strength.

Null in the primary analysis of the whole cohort. The prespecified analysis of the higher-risk ARIC subgroup found less decline, which the authors present as hypothesis-generating rather than as a result.

No difference from placebo on the primary agitation outcome or other main behavioural outcomes. As-needed psychotropic use was lower during the active period, and no serious drug-related adverse events occurred.

Neither choir singing nor group music therapy beat standard care. Country was the strongest predictor of the differences between sites.