ReviewGeroScience2026
Optimizing cognitive functions in healthy older adults: a network meta-analysis of dual- and single-task interventions.
Review in GeroScience, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical and cognitive interventions, alone or combined, are recognized strategies to enhance cognitive function in healthy older adults, though their relative effectiveness remains debated. This study aimed to compare and classify the impact of such interventions on cognitive performance. Following PRISMA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, with screening and data extraction procedures guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024565879). A network meta-analysis synthesized results from 87 studies including participants aged 65 and older. Interventions were grouped into seven groups, covering dual-task, single-task, technology-based formats, and a control group. Compared with controls, cognitive-motor dual-task training showed the strongest effects (SMD = 0.71, 95% CI 0.45, 0.97). Differences between exercise types were not statistically significant. However, dual-task approaches, whether technology-supported or not, outperformed traditional physical training (e.g., SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.05, 0.61). Findings suggest that dual-task interventions effectively enhance cognitive performance, with technology adding value by creating engaging and adaptive experiences. Technology particularly strengthened single-task training. Future research should examine specific executive functions and scalable technology-based methods to guide evidence-based strategies that promote healthy aging and cognitive resilience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41580580What 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.