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.

67/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Results Overall, 68 studies were included in the meta-analyses. AE improved GC in older adults with MCI (ES = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.21-1.32], p = 0.01). tDCS improved GC (ES = 0.69 [90% CI: 0.12-1.26], p = 0.02), all three cognitive function (GC, WM and EF) combined in older adults with dementia (ES = 1.12 [95% CI: 0.04-2.19], p = 0.04) and improved cognitive function in older adults overall (ES = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.20-1,18], p = 0.01).

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

APA 7th

Talar, K., Vetrovsky, T., van Haren, M., Négyesi, J., Granacher, U., Váczi, M., et al. (2022). The effects of aerobic exercise and transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101738

Vancouver

Talar K, Vetrovsky T, van Haren M, Négyesi J, Granacher U, Váczi M, et al. The effects of aerobic exercise and transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101738. PMID: 36162707.

BibTeX

@article{talar2022-36162707,
  author  = {Talar, K. and Vetrovsky, T. and van Haren, M. and Négyesi, J. and Granacher, U. and Váczi, M. and Martín-Arévalo, E. and Del Olmo, M. F. and others},
  title   = {{The effects of aerobic exercise and transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Ageing research reviews},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.arr.2022.101738},
  pmid    = {36162707},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101738}
}

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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Results Overall, 68 studies were included in the meta-analyses.
AE improved GC in older adults with MCI (ES = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.21-1.32], p = 0.01). tDCS improved GC (ES = 0.69 [90% CI: 0.12-1.26], p = 0.02), all three cognitive function (GC, WM and EF) combined in older adults with dementia (ES = 1.12 [95% CI: 0.04-2.19], p = 0.04) and improved cognitive function in older adults overall (ES = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.20-1,18], p = 0.01).

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

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 67/100

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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Ageing research reviews)
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
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	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	— / 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 36162707)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	39 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total	67 / 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 Prevention trials

Also tagged “controlled”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; 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 →