ArticlePeerJ2024
A methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on exercise interventions for cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Publication Characteristics and Reporting Quality of GBD-Derived Burden of Disease Studies: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Lung Cancer.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Article
- Qualitative Assessment of Network Meta-Analyses of Exercise Therapy for Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To assess the methodological quality of meta-analytic literature on exercise interventions for cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the certainty of evidence for its outcome indicators, and to provide clinicians and researchers with more reliable data for making decisions. Methods: Meta-analytic literature related to the effect of exercise intervention on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment was searched through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Web of Science, all with a search period frame of each database until June 1, 2024. The AMSTAR2 scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Results: Seventeen meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR2 scale evaluation results showed that there was one medium-quality studies (5.55%), seven low-quality studies (38.88%), and 10 very low-quality studies (55.55%). Methodological deficiencies included failure to prepare a plan and provide a registration number, literature screening, data extraction, reasons for exclusion not described in detail, poor implementation process for systematic evaluation, and failure to describe the source of funding for the included studies or relevant conflicts of interest. Conclusion: The overall methodological quality of the meta-analytic literature is low, and the certainty of evidence is low. We encourage the conduction of high-quality randomized trials to generate stronger evidence. Subsequent systematic reviews can then synthesize this evidence to inform future research and clinical guidelines.
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.