Home › Research › Treatments
The efficacy of cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, and cognitive rehabilitation for people living with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Paggetti A, Druda Y, Sciancalepore F, Della Gatta F, Ancidoni A, Locuratolo N, et al.. GeroScience, 2024-11-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cognition-oriented treatments (COTs) are a group of non-pharmacological treatments aimed at maintaining or improving cognitive functioning. Specific recommendations on the use of these interventions in people living with dementia (PLwD) are included in the Italian Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment, developed by the Italian National Institute of Health. This systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the GRADE methodology, is part of the guideline. Considered outcomes included the cognitive functions, quality of life, and functional abilities of PLwD, taking into account disease severity, modality and system of delivery, and form of the intervention. The effectiveness of these interventions on caregivers' outcomes was also assessed. Both group and individual cognitive stimulation were reported as effective in supporting cognitive functions in PLwD at any degree of severity. Individual cognitive training and group cognitive training were reported as effective in improving global cognitive functions in people with mild dementia. Cognitive rehabilitation appeared to be effective only in improving the functional abilities of people with mild dementia. Cognitive rehabilitation appeared to be the most effective in improving caregivers' outcomes, with results suggesting a reduction in care burden. The observed differences in the effectiveness of these interventions in people with different disease severity can be explained by the intrinsic characteristics of each intervention. Despite the large number of available studies, a high clinical, statistical, and methodological heterogeneity was observed. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed to clarify the effectiveness of each protocol and modality of intervention.
Key findings
- Cognitive rehabilitation appeared to be the most effective in improving caregivers' outcomes, with results suggesting a reduction in care burden.
Why it matters
This review found that group and individual cognitive stimulation helped support cognitive function in people with dementia at any severity, and cognitive training helped global cognition in mild dementia. Cognitive rehabilitation improved functional abilities in mild dementia and was most effective for caregiver outcomes, including reduced care burden.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designsystematic-review
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
High clinical, statistical and methodological heterogeneity; pooled effect sizes not given in the abstract; a published erratum exists.
How this study scored 59/100
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 senior author's track record and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 55 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (GeroScience) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | GeroScience: journal h-index 83 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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 | 3 / 7 | Cited 31 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 7.8 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 4 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 31 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Maria Cristina Porrello holds only 2 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Sapienza University of Rome: institution h-index 1,145 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 13 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39485657) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 55 / 94 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 55 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Paggetti, A., Druda, Y., Sciancalepore, F., Della Gatta, F., Ancidoni, A., Locuratolo, N., et al. (2024). The efficacy of cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, and cognitive rehabilitation for people living with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. GeroScience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-024-01400-z
Vancouver
Paggetti A, Druda Y, Sciancalepore F, Della Gatta F, Ancidoni A, Locuratolo N, et al. The efficacy of cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, and cognitive rehabilitation for people living with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. GeroScience. 2024. doi:10.1007/s11357-024-01400-z. PMID: 39485657.
BibTeX
@article{paggetti2024-39485657,
author = {Paggetti, A. and Druda, Y. and Sciancalepore, F. and Della Gatta, F. and Ancidoni, A. and Locuratolo, N. and others},
title = {{The efficacy of cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, and cognitive rehabilitation for people living with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {GeroScience},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1007/s11357-024-01400-z},
pmid = {39485657},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-024-01400-z}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.
Later studies that cite this one
4 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Treatments
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.