Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Comparison of multiple interventions for older adults with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis
Liang JH, Xu Y, Lin L, Jia RX, Zhang HB, Hang L.. Medicine, 2018-05-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) emphasizes the need for effective treatments. Both pharmacological therapies such as nutrition therapy (NT) and nonpharmacologic therapies including traditional treatment or personalized treatment (e.g., physical exercise, music therapy, computerized cognitive training) have been approved for the treatment of AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in numerous areas. Methods The aim of this study was to compare 4 types of interventions, physical exercise (PE), music therapy (MT), computerized cognitive training (CCT), and NT, in older adults with mild to moderate AD or MCI and identify the most effective intervention for their cognitive function. We used a system of search strategies to identify relevant studies and include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of 4 interventions in patients with AD or MCI. We updated the relevant studies which were published before March 2017 as a full-text article. Using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), we ranked cognitive ability based objectively on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and assessed neuropsychiatric symptoms based on Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Pairwise and network meta-analyses were sequentially performed for efficacy and safety of intervention compared to control group through RCTs included. Results We included 17 RCTs. Fifteen trials (n = 1747) were pooled for cognition and no obvious heterogeneity was found (I = 21.7%, P = .212) in NMA, the mean difference (MD) of PE (MD = 2.1, confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-3.8) revealed that PE was significantly efficacious in the treatment group in terms of MMSE. Five trials (n = 660) assessed neuropsychiatric symptoms with an obvious heterogeneity (I = 61.6%, P = .034), the MD of CCT (MD = -7.7, CI: -14 to -2.4), revealing that CCT was significantly efficacious in NPI. Conclusions As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. Moreover, nonpharmacological therapies might be better than pharmacological therapies.
Key findings
- Pairwise and network meta-analyses were sequentially performed for efficacy and safety of intervention compared to control group through RCTs included.
- Fifteen trials (n = 1747) were pooled for cognition and no obvious heterogeneity was found (I = 21.7%, P = .212) in NMA, the mean difference (MD) of PE (MD = 2.1, confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-3.8) revealed that PE was significantly efficacious in the treatment group in terms of MMSE.
- Five trials (n = 660) assessed neuropsychiatric symptoms with an obvious heterogeneity (I = 61.6%, P = .034), the MD of CCT (MD = -7.7, CI: -14 to -2.4), revealing that CCT was significantly efficacious in NPI.
- Conclusions As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants1,747
- Effect size21.7%; 61.6%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 83/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 83 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,747 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29768349) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 48 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 83 out of 100. |
| Total | 83 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Liang, J. H., Xu, Y., Lin, L., Jia, R. X., Zhang, H. B., & Hang, L. (2018). Comparison of multiple interventions for older adults with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000010744
Vancouver
Liang JH, Xu Y, Lin L, Jia RX, Zhang HB, Hang L. Comparison of multiple interventions for older adults with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000010744. PMID: 29768349.
BibTeX
@article{liang2018-29768349,
author = {Liang, J. H. and Xu, Y. and Lin, L. and Jia, R. X. and Zhang, H. B. and Hang, L.},
title = {{Comparison of multiple interventions for older adults with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis}},
journal = {Medicine},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1097/md.0000000000010744},
pmid = {29768349},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000010744}
}
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “exercise-training”
125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.