SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
A meta-analysis of the effects of combined interventions centered on cognitive training on cognition, executive function, and negative emotions in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically compare the effects of five intervention strategies centered on Cognitive Training (CT), including Routine Care (RC), CT, Physical Exercise (PE), Cognitive Plus Exercise Training (CET), and Cognitive Plus Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (CNIBS), on cognitive function, executive function, and negative emotions in patients with Alzheimer's disease, using a network meta-analysis. The relative efficacy of different interventions was ranked to provide evidence-based support for optimizing combined treatment strategies in clinical practice. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials on CT and its combined interventions for Alzheimer's disease published from database inception to April 2026. A network meta-analysis was conducted within a frequentist framework using Stata 17.0 software. The efficacy of interventions was ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Results: A total of 19 randomized controlled trials involving more than 2,000 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that, for cognitive function, CNIBS (SUCRA = 75.4%) and CET (SUCRA = 72.4%) ranked first and second, respectively, and were significantly superior to RC and single interventions. For executive function, CET ranked highest (SUCRA = 99.9%) and was significantly superior to PE alone (SMD = 3.71, 95% CI: 3.16 to 4.26) and RC (SMD = 1.69, 95% CI: 0.48 to 2.91), other interventions do not offer a significant advantage over RC. For negative emotions, CET ranked highest (SUCRA = 83.7%), followed by PE alone (SUCRA = 57.9%), and CNIBS was also superior to CT alone (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.61). Conclusion: Combined interventions centered on CT are superior to single interventions in improving multidimensional symptoms in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Among them, CET shows the most prominent advantages in improving executive function and negative emotions, whereas CNIBS shows the greatest effect on overall cognitive function. In clinical practice, individualized intervention strategies should be selected according to the primary rehabilitation goal.
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.