ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about non-pharmacological interventions for treating cognitive decline and dementia?
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in Selected Cognitive and Motor Skills as Well as the Quality of Life After a 24-Week Multidimensional Music-Based Exercise Program in People With Dementia.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementiasTrial
- Effects of moxibustion on symptoms of mild cognitive impairment: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Effects of a Humanoid Socially Assistive Robot Versus Tablet Training on Psychosocial and Physical Outcomes of Persons With Dementia: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Review of Programs for Persons Facing Death with Dementia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Effects of creative expression therapy on Chinese elderly patients with dementia: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2019Article
- The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background: Dementia is a highly prevalent condition worldwide. Its chronic and progressive presentation has an impact on physical and psychosocial characteristics and on public healthcare. Our aim was to summarize evidence from Cochrane reviews on non-pharmacological treatments for cognitive disorders and dementia. DESIGN AND
setting: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
methods: Cochrane reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive dysfunctions and/or type of dementia were included. For this, independent assessments were made by two authors.
results: Twenty-four reviews were included. These showed that carbohydrate intake and validation therapy may be beneficial for cognitive disorders. For dementia, there is a potential benefit from physical activity programs, cognitive training, psychological treatments, aromatherapy, light therapy, cognitive rehabilitation, cognitive stimulation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy in association with donepezil, functional analysis, reminiscence therapy, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, structured decision-making on feeding options, case management approaches, interventions by non-specialist healthcare workers and specialized care units. No benefits were found in relation to enteral tube feeding, acupuncture, Snoezelen stimulation, respite care, palliative care team and interventions to prevent wandering behavior.
conclusion: Many non-pharmacological interventions for patients with cognitive impairment and dementia have been studied and potential benefits have been shown. However, the strength of evidence derived from these studies was considered low overall, due to the methodological limitations of the primary studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.