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.

68/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

On meta-analysis, PARO had no ST or LT compared to UC or AC over 5-12 weeks on agitation (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 153 participants: pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.25; - 0.57 to 0.06; LT vs UC; 2 trials, 77 participants, SMD = -0.24; - 0.94, 0.46), cognition (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 128 participants: SMD= 0.03; -0.32, 0.38), overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 169 participants: SMD= -0.01; -0.32, 0.29; ST vs AC, 2 trials, 145 participants: SMD =0.02, -0.71, 0.85), apathy (ST vs AC, 2 trials, 81 participants: SMD= 0.14; 0.29, 0.58), depression (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 181 participants; SMD= 0.08; -0.52, 0.69; LT vs UC: 2 trials, 77 participants: SMD =0.01; -0.75, 0.77), anxiety (ST vs UC: 2 trials, 104 participants, SMD= 0.24; -0.85, 1.33) and quality of life (ST vs UC, 2 trials, 127 participants: SMD=-0.05; -0.52, 0.42; ST vs AC: 2 trials, 159 participants, SMD =-0.36, -0.76, 0.05).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Yu, C., Sommerlad, A., Sakure, L., & Livingston, G. (2022). Socially assistive robots for people with dementia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of feasibility, acceptability and the effect on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life. Ageing research reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101633

Vancouver

Yu C, Sommerlad A, Sakure L, Livingston G. Socially assistive robots for people with dementia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of feasibility, acceptability and the effect on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life. Ageing research reviews. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101633. PMID: 35462001.

BibTeX

@article{yu2022-35462001,
  author  = {Yu, C. and Sommerlad, A. and Sakure, L. and Livingston, G.},
  title   = {{Socially assistive robots for people with dementia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of feasibility, acceptability and the effect on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life}},
  journal = {Ageing research reviews},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.arr.2022.101633},
  pmid    = {35462001},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101633}
}

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

On meta-analysis, PARO had no ST or LT compared to UC or AC over 5-12 weeks on agitation (ST vs UC, 4 trials, 153 participants: pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.25; - 0.57 to 0.06; LT vs UC; 2 trials, 77 participants, SMD = -0.24; - 0.94, 0.46), cognition (ST vs UC, 3 trials, 128 particip

Why it matters

In this meta-analysis, the socially assistive robot PARO had no significant short- or long-term effect compared to usual care or active control on agitation, cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, or quality of life in people with dementia. These null results indicate PARO does not treat, cure, or prevent Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Participants153
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 68/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Ageing research reviews)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Ageing Research Reviews: journal h-index 225 (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	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	153 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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	5 / 7	Cited 128 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	21.3 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 108 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Gill Livingston: h-index 99 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35462001)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	68 / 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).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

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

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “care”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →