ReviewBrain sciences2026
Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Managing Apathy in Older Adults with Neurocognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Brain sciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesApathy is among the most common neuropsychiatric features of late-life neurocognitive disorders and predicts functional decline and greater caregiver burden. As no treatment is formally established, identifying effective interventions is a priority. We systematically reviewed non-pharmacological randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting apathy in older adults with neurocognitive disorders.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (final search 23 March 2026). Eligible studies were non-pharmacological RCTs reporting an apathy outcome. Evidence levels were graded with OCEBM and quality with PEDro; two reviewers mapped PEDro items onto Cochrane risk-of-bias domains. Reporting followed PRISMA 2020.
resultsSixty-two RCTs were included. Physical exercise and music-based interventions showed the most consistent benefit, whereas technology-based and brain stimulation approaches remained experimental. Only 30 trials (48%) showed a significant between-group effect on apathy-most were null, within-group, or had apathy as a secondary outcome. Marked heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Most trials were of moderate to high quality, though near-universal performance bias arose from the inability to blind participants and providers.
conclusionsManaging apathy in these populations remains challenging, and the certainty of the evidence is limited. Purpose-built, apathy-focused trials reporting effect sizes and durability are needed before disease-specific recommendations can be made.
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.