Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Backgrounds To investigate the efficacy of a community group-based intervention among community-dwelling older adults with physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS). Methods A prospective cluster randomized controlled trial included 733 community-dwelling older adults with adjusted Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA adj) scores >18 from 40 community-based sites across Taiwan. PCDS was defined as the concomitant presence of physical declines, i.e., slowness and/or weakness plus dysfunction in any cognitive domain. The multidomain intervention integrated physical exercise, cognitive training, nutritional advices and health education lessons. Conventional health education in control group entailed periodic telephone calls to offer participants health education and advice. The primary outcome was the mean differences of MoCA adj total scores and all domains of MoCA adj between baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up in each group of PCDS, cognitive dysfunction, mobility-type frailty and normal functioning, and the secondary outcomes included the changes of frailty score, handgrip strength, gait speed and physical activity. Intervention effects were analysed using a generalized linear mixed model. Results Overall, 18.9% of the study sample had PCDS. Multidomain intervention for 12 months significantly improved cognitive performance in people with PCDS, and those with cognitive dysfunction only. An early benefit on visuo-spatial executive function was seen in older adults with mobility-type frailty. Intervention also improved frailty scores among participants with mobility-type frailty, handgrip strength for participants with PCDS, and gait speed in the normal group. Conclusions PCDS is a potentially reversible condition that may prevent subsequent disability and dementia, which deserves further investigation to confirm the long-term effects.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 79/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 46 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 79 of 100. Total 79 of 100.46 of the 58 points we could judge = 79 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of gerontology and geriatrics)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 733 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 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 33765656)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 46 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total 79 / 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. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Liang, C. K., Lee, W. J., Hwang, A. C., Lin, C. S., Chou, M. Y., Peng, L. N., et al. (2021). Efficacy of Multidomain Intervention Against Physio-cognitive Decline Syndrome: A Cluster-randomized Trial. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104392

Vancouver

Liang CK, Lee WJ, Hwang AC, Lin CS, Chou MY, Peng LN, et al. Efficacy of Multidomain Intervention Against Physio-cognitive Decline Syndrome: A Cluster-randomized Trial. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2021.104392. PMID: 33765656.

BibTeX

@article{liang2021-33765656,
  author  = {Liang, C. K. and Lee, W. J. and Hwang, A. C. and Lin, C. S. and Chou, M. Y. and Peng, L. N. and Lin, M. H. and Chen, L. K.},
  title   = {{Efficacy of Multidomain Intervention Against Physio-cognitive Decline Syndrome: A Cluster-randomized Trial}},
  journal = {Archives of gerontology and geriatrics},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.archger.2021.104392},
  pmid    = {33765656},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104392}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →