Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression
Huntley JD, Gould RL, Liu K, Smith M, Howard RJ.. BMJ open, 2015-04-02
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To review the efficacy of cognitive interventions on improving general cognition in dementia. Method Online literature databases and trial registers, previous systematic reviews and leading journals were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. A systematic review, random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted.
Key findings
- Method Online literature databases and trial registers, previous systematic reviews and leading journals were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials.
- A systematic review, random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted.
- Cognitive interventions were categorised as: cognitive stimulation (CS), involving a range of social and cognitive activities to stimulate multiple cognitive domains; cognitive training (CT), involving repeated practice of standardised tasks targeting a specific cognitive function; cognitive rehabilitation (CR), which takes a person-centred approach to target impaired function; or mixed CT and stimulation (MCTS).
- Separate analyses were conducted for general cognitive outcome measures and for studies using 'active' (designed to control for non-specific therapeutic effects) and non-active (minimal or no intervention) control groups.
Why it matters
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia, categorising them as cognitive stimulation and cognitive training. The available text does not report whether these interventions improved cognition.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 60/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | BMJ Open: journal h-index 240 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | 5 / 7 | Cited 181 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 13.9 citations a year over 13 year(s) since 2015 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 10 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 39 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Robert Howard: h-index 95 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25838501) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Huntley, J. D., Gould, R. L., Liu, K., Smith, M., & Howard, R. J. (2015). Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247
Vancouver
Huntley JD, Gould RL, Liu K, Smith M, Howard RJ. Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression. BMJ open. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247. PMID: 25838501.
BibTeX
@article{huntley2015-25838501,
author = {Huntley, J. D. and Gould, R. L. and Liu, K. and Smith, M. and Howard, R. J.},
title = {{Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247},
pmid = {25838501},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
10 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.