SynthesisBMC geriatrics2025
Effectiveness of reminiscence therapy on multiple health outcomes for older adults: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMany systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported the effect of reminiscence therapy (RT) on older adults. However, results highlight inconsistent outcomes. Our aims of this study are to summarize the evidence and evaluate the effectiveness of reminiscence therapy (RT) in older adults by using an umbrella review methodology.
methodsAn umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of reminiscence therapy (RT) on older adults. Ten databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycNet, CNKI, VIP, SinoMed, and Wanfang Database were searched to identify articles in English or Chinese from inception to November 9, 2023. Two authors of this review independently selected the studies, assessed their quality and extracted the data from the included studies. A quality assessment of eligible reviews was conducted using the AMSTAR 2.0 tool, PRISMA, and GRADE tool. Estimated 95% prediction intervals and heterogeneity were also calculated.
resultsA total of 21 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this umbrella review, examining the effects of RT in older adults. Collectively, these reviews encompassed 246 RCTs involving a total of 18,177 participants and evaluated 12 outcomes, which were classified into 4 domains (emotional outcomes: depression, anxiety, loneliness, apathy and self-esteem; cognitive outcomes: cognitive function; behavioral outcomes: agitation behavior, functional behavior, communication and interaction; overall well-being: quality of life, life satisfaction and well-being). The overall methodological quality of the included reviews was rated as critically low according to the AMSTAR-2.
conclusionsWhile the existing evidence suggests that RT may have potential benefits in enhancing self-esteem, communication and interaction, functional activities, and reducing loneliness, these findings should be interpreted with caution given that most included reviews were rated as critically low quality. Current evidence does not support the effectiveness of RT in improving well-being, agitation behaviors, or apathy, and mixed results were observed for other outcomes. To draw more definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of RT, future research should employ rigorous methodological designs, involve larger and more diverse samples, and ensure longer follow-up periods.
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.