Home › Research › Treatments
Diagnosis and Treatment for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements
Chen YX, Liang N, Li XL, Yang SH, Wang YP, Shi NN.. Frontiers in neurology, 2021-10-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Thirteen guidance documents (four guidelines and nine consensus statements) with specific recommendations were included. Nine guidelines and consensus statements covered the screening and diagnosis of MCI. The evaluation of the documents showed that neuropsychological testing and biomarker assessments were the most common recommendations for the diagnosis of MCI. Nine of the 13 guidance documents covered the treatment and management of MCI. The recommendations for the treatment and management were classified into four categories, namely: intervention for risk reduction, pharmacologic interventions, non-pharmacologic interventions, and counseling. Regarding pharmacological interventions, three guidelines recommend no pharmacologic intervention. The use of cholinesterase inhibitors for MCI is contraindicated in three guidance documents, whereas one proposes that cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine should be deprescribed. EHb761 ® , Chinese herbal decoctions, and Chinese traditional patent medicine are recommended in two documents. A total of seven guidance documents recommend non-pharmacological interventions, including physical activity interventions, cognitive interventions, dietary and nutritional interventions, and acupuncture. An updated search for possible evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of MCI is needed. Potentially effective diagnoses and treatments, either conventional or complementary, and alternative therapies should be highly valued and addressed in correlation with the supporting evidence.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chen, Y. X., Liang, N., Li, X. L., Yang, S. H., Wang, Y. P., & Shi, N. N. (2021). Diagnosis and Treatment for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements. Frontiers in neurology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.719849
Vancouver
Chen YX, Liang N, Li XL, Yang SH, Wang YP, Shi NN. Diagnosis and Treatment for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements. Frontiers in neurology. 2021. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.719849. PMID: 34712197.
BibTeX
@article{chen2021-34712197,
author = {Chen, Y. X. and Liang, N. and Li, X. L. and Yang, S. H. and Wang, Y. P. and Shi, N. N.},
title = {{Diagnosis and Treatment for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements}},
journal = {Frontiers in neurology},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3389/fneur.2021.719849},
pmid = {34712197},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.719849}
}
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.
Key findings
- Thirteen guidance documents (four guidelines and nine consensus statements) with specific recommendations were included.
- Nine guidelines and consensus statements covered the screening and diagnosis of MCI.
- The evaluation of the documents showed that neuropsychological testing and biomarker assessments were the most common recommendations for the diagnosis of MCI.
- Nine of the 13 guidance documents covered the treatment and management of MCI.
- The recommendations for the treatment and management were classified into four categories, namely: intervention for risk reduction, pharmacologic interventions, non-pharmacologic interventions, and counseling.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34712197) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “clinical-practice”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “clinical-practice”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.