The optimal treatment for improving cognitive function in elder people with mild cognitive impairment incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. 85-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing-hong Liang ◽  
Wan-ting Shen ◽  
Jia-yu Li ◽  
Xin-yuan Qu ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e027062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haifeng Zhang ◽  
Jonathan Huntley ◽  
Rohan Bhome ◽  
Benjamin Holmes ◽  
Jack Cahill ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo determine the effect of computerised cognitive training (CCT) on improving cognitive function for older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched through January 2018.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing CCT with control conditions in those with MCI aged 55+ were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Effect sizes (Hedges’ g and 95% CIs) were calculated and random-effects meta-analyses were performed where three or more studies investigated a comparable intervention and outcome. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic.Results18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses, involving 690 participants. Meta-analysis revealed small to moderate positive treatment effects compared with control interventions in four domains as follows: global cognitive function (g=0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.44), memory (g=0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50), working memory (g=0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.66) and executive function (g=0.20, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.43). Statistical significance was reached in all domains apart from executive function.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis provides evidence that CCT improves cognitive function in older people with MCI. However, the long-term transfer of these improvements and the potential to reduce dementia prevalence remains unknown. Various methodological issues such as heterogeneity in outcome measures, interventions and MCI symptoms and lack of intention-to-treat analyses limit the quality of the literature and represent areas for future research.


Author(s):  
Liselotte De Wit ◽  
Vitoria Piai ◽  
Pilar Thangwaritorn ◽  
Brynn Johnson ◽  
Deirdre O’Shea ◽  
...  

AbstractThe literature on repetition priming in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is inconsistent, with some findings supporting spared priming while others do not. Several factors may explain these inconsistencies, including AD severity (e.g., dementia vs. Mild Cognitive Impairment; MCI) and priming paradigm-related characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a quantitative summary of repetition priming in AD. We examined the between-group standard mean difference comparing repetition priming in AD dementia or amnestic MCI (aMCI; presumably due to AD) to controls. Thirty-two studies were selected, including 590 individuals with AD dementia, 267 individuals with amnestic MCI, and 703 controls. Our results indicated that both individuals with aMCI and AD dementia perform worse on repetition priming tasks than cognitively older adults. Paradigm-related moderators suggested that the effect size between studies comparing the combined aMCI or AD dementia group to cognitively healthy older adults was the highest for paradigms that required participants to produce, rather than identify, primes during the test phase. Our results further suggested that priming in AD is impaired for both conceptual and perceptual priming tasks. Lastly, while our results suggested that priming in AD is impaired for priming tasks that require deep processing, we were unable to draw firm conclusions about whether priming is less impaired in aMCI or AD dementia for paradigms that require shallow processing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document