Abstract
Accumulating evidence has shown the effectiveness of cognitive interventions, which can be divided into cognitive training (CT), cognitive stimulation (CS), cognitive rehabilitation (CR), and combined interventions (i.e., cognitive interventions combined with other non-pharmacological interventions such as physical exercise), in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, the effectiveness of cognitive interventions varies greatly among studies and more comprehensive studies are required. We aimed to evaluate whether the current evidence shows that cognitive interventions are effective at improving cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, quality of life, and basic activities of daily living among individuals with possible or probable AD. Randomized controlled trials of all types of cognitive intervention were identified for inclusion in pairwise and network meta-analyses. There was a moderate and statistically significant post-intervention improvement in global cognition among individuals with AD for all types of cognitive intervention compared to control interventions (39 studies, g = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.58, p < 0.01; Q = 102.27, df = 38, p < 0.01; I2 = 61.97%, τ2 = 0.13). Regarding the specific types of cognitive intervention, combined interventions had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value (90.7%), followed by CT (67.8%), CS (53.4%), and lastly CR (28.9%). Significant effects of cognitive interventions were also found for working memory, verbal memory, verbal fluency, confrontation naming, attention, neuropsychiatric symptoms, basic activities of daily living, and quality of life.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
With the aging of the global population, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has become a leading cause of disability and represents an enormous societal burden (Jia et al., 2018). Currently, cholinesterase inhibitors are the primary pharmacological treatment for cognitive symptoms in AD. However, cholinesterase inhibitors have a poor risk-benefit relationship, indicated by frequent discontinuation and mild symptom improvement (Blanco-Silvente et al., 2017). Non-pharmacological interventions can be beneficial for AD prevention and treatment and, importantly, are less likely to cause adverse events (Livingston et al., 2020). For example, cognitive intervention has been recommended for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in clinical guidelines (Petersen et al., 2018), however, there is insufficient evidence for use of cognitive intervention in individuals with mild to severe dementia (Arvanitakis et al., 2019).
According to Clare and Wood’s research, cognitive interventions can be divided into three categories, including cognitive training (CT), cognitive stimulation (CS), and cognitive rehabilitation (CR: Clare et al., 2003). CT, which involves a standardized task with a range of difficulty levels, aims to improve specific cognitive domains (Bahar-Fuchs et al., 2019; Trebbastoni et al., 2018). CS, which involves a wide range of group-oriented social events, aims to generally improve cognitive function and behavior (Cafferata et al., 2021; Oliveira et al., 2021). CR, which is an individualized method, aims to achieve optimal levels of physical, psychological, and social functioning (Bottino et al., 2005). Although there are many studies on the effectiveness of various cognitive interventions, very few reviews have focused on summarizing the treatment results. Moreover, the possibility of combining CT with non-pharmacological interventions or non-specific cognitive activities, such as physical exercise (Young et al., 2019) or CS (Barban et al., 2016), has been highlighted as a potential approach for improving cognitive function in AD (Gavelin et al., 2021).
Recently, traditional pairwise meta-analysis has been increasingly used to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive interventions on cognitive performance in cognitively healthy older adults (Lampit et al., 2014), individuals with MCI (Liang et al., 2019) and individuals with AD (Bahar-Fuchs et al., 2019; Cafferata et al., 2021; Gavelin et al., 2021). However, such conventional pairwise meta-analyses on individuals have mixed patients with AD and MCI (Gavelin et al., 2021) or only included CT on individuals with AD (Bahar-Fuchs et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2017) or CS (Cafferata et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is difficult to compare and rank the efficacy of multiple interventions in a pairwise meta-analysis, particularly for combined interventions (i.e., cognitive interventions combined with other non-pharmacological interventions, such as physical exercise). Thus, network meta-analysis extends on the conventional, pairwise meta-analysis by comparing multiple treatments within a network of RCTs to identify the optimal type of cognitive intervention for individuals with AD. Additionally, we aimed to conduct pairwise meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of cognitive interventions on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, quality of life, basic activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living in individuals with AD.
Method
Our analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Cumpston et al., 2019) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al., 2021a, b).
Eligibility Criteria
We searched for relevant studies using a population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) approach.
Types of Participants
Regarding the population, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of possible or probable AD with a mean age >50 years who were diagnosed using widely recognized diagnostic criteria, including the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINCDS)–Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA) and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) (Dubois et al., 2007; McKhann et al., 1984). Participants mixed with MCI, where the extent of cognitive impairment or its effects on day-to-day function were insufficient to justify a dementia diagnosis, were not included.
Types of Interventions
Regarding the interventions, RCTs involving paper-and-pencil or computerized exercises were included. RCTs involving interventions that targeted a single cognitive domain or multiple cognitive domains were included. CT typically involves guided practice on a set of standardized tasks designed to reflect specific cognitive functions such as memory, attention, or problem-solving. CR aims to directly address those difficulties considered most relevant by the person with dementia and by their family members or supporters, and to target everyday situations in a real-life context. CS encompasses a variety of approaches including reality orientation, validation, or reminiscence. RCTs were also included when the cognitive interventions were combined with other non-pharmacological interventions, such as physical exercise, which were designated “combined interventions”.
Types of Controls
Regarding the comparator intervention, active controls (i.e., participants who engaged in a non-structured intervention) and passive controls (i.e., participants on wait lists or standard management) were included.
Types of Outcomes
Primary outcomes comprised the change (i.e., from baseline to the end of the treatment) in cognition, including global cognition, confrontation naming (Boston Naming Test), verbal fluency (verbal fluency test), working memory (Digit Span Backward), attention (Digit Span Forward), executive function (Trail Making Test B), immediate and delayed verbal memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test immediate and delayed recall), immediate and delayed nonverbal memory, processing speed (Trail Making Test A), and visuospatial skills (Clock Drawing Test). Global cognition was evaluated by validated instruments, comprising the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). Secondary outcomes included neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), depression (Geriatric Depression Scale or Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), quality of life (Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease or Dementia-Related Quality of Life), basic activities of daily living (Bayer Activities of Daily Living Scale, Erlangen Test of Activities of Daily Living) and instrumental activities of daily living (Instrumental Activities of Daily Living) (Hill et al., 2017).
Search Strategy
Information Sources
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for RCTs published in English in 2000–2022 August. Earlier studies were excluded, as it is more likely that these studies report outcomes for outdated interventions.
Search Strategy
The following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms were used in combination: (dementia OR Alzheimer’s disease) AND (cognitive intervention, cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation, cognitive method, cognitive therapy, OR cognitive assistance) AND (randomized controlled trial). The full search strategy is shown in Table S1. Additional RCTs from previous reviews and the references of included studies were also considered.
Data Collection and Analysis
Selection Process
Two independent authors screened the titles and abstracts of the included citations and evaluated the full-texts of potentially relevant articles. Consensus was reached by discussion if any disagreement existed.
Data Collection Process
Two independent reviewers extracted and verified the relevant data from the included studies, including characteristics of the publications, participants, and interventions, and outcome measures. If disagreements could not be resolved between the two investigators, a consensus was reached by discussion.
Data Items
Outcomes were recorded as the mean, standard deviation (SD), and the number of patients who displayed change from baseline. If the change data were not available, the mean, SD and for each treatment group at each time point was extracted. The review authors calculated the required summary statistics from the baseline and post-treatment group means and SD, assuming that the correlation between measurements at baseline and those at the subsequent time points was zero. This method overestimates the SD of the change from baseline, but it is preferable to use a conservative approach in a meta-analysis (Orgeta et al., 2020).
Study Risk of Bias Assessment
We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence in the included studies on the effect of cognitive interventions compared to control interventions in AD (Guyatt et al., 2011). Risk of bias of each included study was assessed for six domains, including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting.
Data Analysis
The analysis was conducted in two steps. First, most parts of the pairwise meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models in STATA 16.0 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), while the moderator analysis and forest plots of relative treatment effects were conducted to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity using the statistical package metafor (3.4-0) and forestplot (2.0.1) in the R software (4.1.2). To adjust for bias resulting from small sample sizes, the effect size for continuous outcomes was calculated as the standardized mean difference (SMD absolute values of <0.30, 0.30–0.60, and >0.80 indicate small, moderate, and large effects, respectively) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). (Higgins et al., 2003). We pooled the Hedges’ g to correct the effect size for small sample sizes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
A random-effects network meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes using MMSE and ADAS-cog was conducted to compare the four cognitive intervention types by using a Bayesian statistical model, and forming a connected network that integrated both direct and indirect evidence using STATA software network (Caldwell et al., 2005). Only one included study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which prevented further analysis on outcomes from this test. We used the Markov chain Monte Carlo method to conduct the network meta-analysis, involving non-informative prior to distributions (Mavridis & Salanti, 2013). Our model generated 50000 iterations, and the first 5000 were discarded as burn-in. We ranked the four interventions according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of the efficacy of different cognitive interventions. Higher SUCRA values indicate that an intervention is more likely to be highly effective, while values closer to zero indicate that the intervention is more likely to be in the bottom rank (Salanti et al., 2011).
Moderator Analysis and Investigation of Heterogeneity
Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and τ2 statistics (I2 of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicate mild, moderate, and high levels of heterogeneity, respectively) (Higgins et al., 2003). As no guideline for interpretation of τ2 exists in literature, we selected a cutoff point of 0.10 based on a previous empirical study (Morze et al., 2022). Moderator analyses were performed using cognitive intervention type (CS, CT, CR, or combined interventions), setting (individual- or group-based intervention), region (Asia or Europe plus America), and control group type (active or passive) to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity.
Assessment of Statistical Inconsistency
The inconsistency between direct and indirect approaches throughout the network was assessed using the node-splitting approach (van Valkenhoef et al., 2016), with p < 0.05 indicating the presence of inconsistency (Higgins et al., 2012).
Sensitivity Analysis and Reporting Bias Assessment
A sensitivity analysis was used to assess the stability of meta-analysis results. Egger’s test and funnel plots were used to assess publication bias among the included studies (Sterne et al., 2011).
Summary of Findings and Assessment of Certainty of Evidence
The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for the included studies reporting on the treatment effect of cognitive intervention in AD compared to a control condition. Risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias were the domains used to rate the overall certainty.
Results
Study Selection
A total of 9518 records from the database search were retained after removing duplicates. Of these records, 9083 were excluded based on titles and abstract screening. We assessed 435 full-text articles for eligibility and 394 of records were excluded. Finally, we found that 41 studies were eligible for inclusion. There were no disagreements between the two independent reviewers regarding the selection of studies. A flowchart of the included studies is shown in Fig. 1.
Participant Characteristics and Quality of Included Studies
The 41 included studies involved 2179 individuals with AD, comprising 1103 individuals in intervention groups and 1076 individuals in control groups. The mean age ranged from 68.67 to 88.25, and the percentage of females ranged from 22.5% to 82.5%. The demographic characteristics of the participants in the included studies are shown in Table 1. The quality (based on the GRADE approach) of each included study is presented in Figs. S1 and S2. Overall, most of included studies did not provide concrete information about random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. Therefore, the quality of the included RCTs was considered to be only moderate, overall.
Effects of Intervention
The summary of findings showing the pooled data for the main comparison of cognitive intervention groups versus controls is shown in Table S2.
Global Cognition
There was a moderate and significant post-intervention improvement in MMSE outcomes for the cognitive intervention groups compared to the controls (39 studies, g = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.58, p < 0.01; Q = 102.27, df = 38, p < 0.01; I2 =61.97%, τ2=0.13, Fig. 2). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.872) did not reveal any evidence of publication bias (Fig. 3).
There was a moderate and significant post-intervention improvement in ADAS-Cog outcomes for the cognitive intervention groups compared to the controls (nine studies, g = -0.33, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.12, p < 0.01; Q = 7.59, df = 8, p = 0.47; I2 = 0.01%, τ2 = 0.00, Fig. S3). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.448) did not reveal any evidence of publication bias.
Moderator Analyses
Moderator analyses were conducted to determine whether within-group treatment efficacy varied as a function of participant and study characteristics. Specifically, four moderator variables were examined, including cognitive intervention type (CS, CT, CR, or combined therapy), setting (individual- or group-based intervention), region (Asia or Europe plus America), and control group type (active or passive).
Cognitive Intervention Type
The moderator analysis revealed a significant improvement for global cognition in CT (11 studies, g = 0.44, SE = 0.17, 95% CI:0.11 to 0.77, z = 2.63, p < 0.01), CS (14 studies, g = 0.31, SE = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.48, z = 3.58, p < 0.01), combined therapy (11 studies, g = 0.59, SE = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.89, z = 3.77, p < 0.01), but not for CR (three studies, g = 0.06, SE = 0.26, 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.57, z = 0.24, p = 0.81). The degree of heterogeneity within the groups was significant (Qwithin = 86.55, df = 35, p < 0.01) and the degree of heterogeneity between the groups was non-significant (Qbetween = 2.83, df = 3, p = 0.41).
Setting
The moderator analysis revealed a significant improvement for global cognition in individual-based (21 studies, g = 0.41, SE = 0.10, 95% CI:0.21 to 0.62, z = 3.95, p < 0.01) and group-based (18 studies, g = 0.46, SE = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.69, z = 3.81, p < 0.01). The degree of heterogeneity within the groups was significant (Qwithin = 99.77, df = 37, p < 0.01), and the degree of heterogeneity between the groups was non-significant (Qbetween = 0.07, df = 1, p=0.78).
Region
The moderator analysis revealed a significant improvement for global cognition in Asia (13 studies, g = 0.61, SE = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.86, z = 4.65, p < 0.01) and in Europe combined with America (26 studies, g = 0.33, SE = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.51, z = 3.67, p < 0.01). The degree of heterogeneity was significant both within the groups (Qwithin =86.33, df = 37, p < 0.01) and between the groups (Qbetween = 3.14, df = 1, p = 0.08).
Control Group Type
The moderator analysis revealed a significant improvement in global cognition when compared with r passive controls (23 studies, g = 0.46, SE = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.64, z = 4.97, p < 0.01) and when compared with active controls (16 studies, g = 0.40, SE = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.68, z = 2.81, p < 0.01). The degree of heterogeneity within the groups was significant (Qwithin = 99.45, df = 37, p < 0.01), and the degree of heterogeneity between the groups was non-significant (Qbetween = 0.16, df = 1, p = 0.69).
Network Meta-Analysis
We also conducted a network meta-analysis to rank the efficacy of the cognitive intervention types (Fig. S4). Among the 39 studies that used the MMSE, there were 14 studies on CS (Capotosto et al., 2017; Coen et al., 2011; Cove et al., 2014; Davis et al., 2001; Justo-Henriques et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2013; Lopez et al., 2020; Mapelli et al., 2013; Niu et al., 2010; Oliveira et al., 2021; Orrell et al., 2014; Spector et al., 2003; Wang, 2007; Yamanaka et al., 2013), 11 studies on CT (Bergamaschi et al., 2013; Casoli et al., 2020; Giovagnoli et al., 2017; Giuli et al., 2016; Huntley et al., 2017; Jelcic et al., 2014; Jelcic et al., 2012; Kang et al., 2019; Shyu et al., 2022; Trebbastoni et al., 2018; Venturelli et al., 2016), three studies on CR (Bottino et al., 2005; Brueggen et al., 2017; Kurth et al., 2021), and 11 studies on combined interventions (Barban et al., 2016; Buschert et al., 2011; Kim, 2020; Kim et al., 2016; Maci et al., 2012; Okamura et al., 2018; Sado et al., 2020; Tanaka et al., 2021; Tarraga et al., 2006; Tokuchi et al., 2016; Young et al., 2019). The SUCRA value was used to rank the efficacy of each intervention (Fig. 4). Higher SUCRA values indicate a higher likelihood that a treatment is in the top rank or is highly effective, while zero represents a higher likelihood that a treatment is in the bottom rank. Combined interventions had the highest SUCRA value (90.7%), followed by CT (67.8%), CS (53.4%), and lastly CR (28.9%). The inconsistency test based on network analysis revealed no significant global inconsistency (p = 0.965), and the node-splitting approach revealed that relatively reliable evidence can be drawn from the absence of statistical inconsistency (p > 0.05; CS versus controls, p = 0.803; CS versus combined intervention strategies, p = 0.869; combined intervention strategies versus controls, p = 0.968). Pairwise comparisons of all cognitive interventions are presented in the network league table displayed in Table S3.
Among nine studies on ADAS-Cog, there were two studies on CT (Fonte et al., 2019; Giuli et al., 2016), three studies on combined therapy (Fernandez-Calvo et al., 2015; Luttenberger et al., 2012; Tarraga et al., 2006), three studies on CS (Capotosto et al., 2017; Coen et al., 2011; Lopez et al., 2020), and one study on CR (Bottino et al., 2005) (Fig. S5). The SUCRA value was used to rank the efficacy of each intervention (Fig. S6). CT had the highest SUCRA value (79.6%), followed by combined therapy (72.3%), CR (55.5%), and lastly CS (18.6%). However, owing to the limited studies that used the ADAS-Cog, no comparison was available to assess statistical consistency, which may influence the reliability of results.
Specific Cognitive Domains
Working Memory
The effect size for working memory was moderate and significant (seven studies, g = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.61, p = 0.01; Q = 3.62, df = 6, p = 0.73; I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.7406) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S7).
Verbal Memory
The effect size for immediate verbal memory was moderate and significant (five studies, g = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.62, p < 0.01; Q = 1.62, df = 4, p = 0.81; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.35) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S7).
The effect size for delayed verbal memory was small and significant (five studies, g = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.03; Q = 1.86, df = 4, p = 0.76; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.412) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S7).
Verbal Fluency
The effect size for verbal fluency was small and significant (seven studies, g = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.47, p = 0.02; Q = 6.47, df = 6, p = 0.37; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.200) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S7).
Confrontation Naming
The effect size for confrontation naming was moderate and significant (seven studies, g = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66, p<0.01; Q = 4.99, df = 6, p = 0.55; I2 = 0.0%, τ 2 =0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.330) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S7).
Attention
The effect size for attention was moderate and significant (six studies, g = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.62, p = 0.03; Q = 4.30, df = 5, p = 0.51; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.701) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S7).
Other Specific Cognitive Domains
Non-significant results were found for executive function (four studies, g= –0.05, 95% CI: –0.50 to 0.40, p = 0.82; Q = 2.30, df = 3, p = 0.51; I2 = 0.0%,τ2 = 0.07), visuospatial skills (three studies, g = 0.61, 95% CI: –0.20 to 1.42, p = 0.14; Q = 6.99, df = 2, p = 0.03; I2 = 72.22%, τ2 = 0.36), processing speed (six studies, g = 0.20, 95% CI: –0.17 to 0.56, p = 0.29; Q = 6.70, df = 5, p = 0.24; I2 = 35.52%, τ2 = 0.07, immediate nonverbal memory (four studies, g = 0.15, 95% CI: –0.20 to 0.49, p = 0.40; Q = 0.48, df = 3, p = 0.92; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00) and delayed nonverbal memory (four studies, g = 0.09, 95% CI: –0.25 to 0.43, p = 0.61; Q = 0.22, df = 3, p = 0.97; I2 = 0.0%,τ2 = 0.00). The results for specific cognitive domains are summarized in Fig. 5.
Subgroup Analyses
Interestingly, there were contradictory results regarding the effects of cognitive intervention type on working memory, attention, and confrontation naming. CT improved these specific cognitive domains, while CS did not improve working memory or attention, and CR did not improve confrontation naming. There were not enough studies for subgroup analyses for combined interventions.
Non-cognitive Domains
Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Depression
The effect size for neuropsychiatric symptoms was large and significant (four studies, g = –1.87, 95% CI: –2.89 to –0.85, p < 0.01; Q = 33.28, df = 3, p < 0.01; I2 = 89.83%, τ2 = 0.97). The funnel plot and Egger’s test did not reveal publication bias (p = 0.868) (Fig. S8).
No significant results were found for depression (12 studies, g = –0.24, 95% CI: –0.51 to 0.04, I2 = 61.27%). The funnel plot and Egger’s test did not reveal significant publication bias (p = 0.572).
Quality of Life and Activities of Daily Living
The effect size for quality of life was moderate and significant (six studies, g = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.56, p < 0.01; Q = 2.91, df = 5, p = 0.71; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.948) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S9).
The effect size for basic activities of daily living was moderate and significant (four studies, g=0.42, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.81, p = 0.03; Q = 8.04, df = 3, p = 0.05; I2 = 60.82%, τ2 = 0.09). The funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.903) did not reveal publication bias (Fig. S10).
No significant results were found for instrumental activities of daily living (five studies, g = 0.21, 95% CI: –0.04 to 0.46, p = 0.10; Q = 0.74, df = 4, p = 0.95; I2 = 0.0%, τ2 = 0.00). These results are summarized in Fig. 5.
Subgroup Analyses
Interestingly, there were contradictory results regarding the effects of different cognitive intervention types on depression. Combined interventions improved depression, while CS and CT did not improve depression. There were not enough studies for subgroup analyses of CR.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to analyze the effects of cognitive intervention types on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, quality of life, basic activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living in individuals with AD. Based on the results of 41 RCTs of moderate quality, we conclude that cognitive interventions are a viable approach to improve cognition in AD, and that the optimal approach is to combine interventions (i.e., cognitive interventions combined with other non-pharmacological interventions; SUCRA = 90.7%). Our robust results show that cognitive interventions, and in particular, CT can benefit global cognition (more specifically, working, verbal memory, attention, confrontation naming for moderate confidence, and verbal fluency for low confidence), neuropsychiatric symptoms, basic activities of daily living for low confidence, and quality of life, with moderate confidence.
Based on this review, the applicability of CT, characterized by standard tasks for improving specific cognitive functions, is much broader than that of CS and CR, potentially because CT may increase functional connectivity in the medial temporal lobe and cause topological changes in the anterior cingulum in individuals with AD (Barban et al., 2017). Importantly, CT combined with other non-pharmacological interventions, including physical exercise, can influence brain plasticity through distinct and complementary paths (Bherer, 2015). A recent study found that simultaneous rather than sequential training might be better to achieve maximal benefit (Gavelin et al., 2021). The results for CR were the poorest among the four cognitive intervention types, and there were a limited number of studies on CR compared to CT and CS. We conclude that combined interventions might be the most beneficial approach for individuals with AD, while CR might not be the best option.
The moderate effect sizes for most memory and language outcomes are very promising, as memory and language issues are highly common in AD. Interestingly, although there was a moderate effect for working memory, there was a non-significant effect for executive function, which is a key predictor of functional decline (Lacreuse et al., 2020). This is consistent with previous meta-analyses results regarding CT in AD (Bahar-Fuchs et al., 2019) and CT in MCI (Hill et al., 2017). A previous study found that executive function training supported brain functioning in individuals who were starting to experience cognitive decline (Cheng, 2016). Thus, we believe that more research on executive function training is needed.
Depression is common in individuals with cognitive impairment (Ismail et al., 2017). Previous studies found moderate effect sizes regarding the effects of cognitive interventions on depression in individuals with MCI (Sherman et al., 2017). However, in agreement with our findings (i.e., no significant results for depression), another study showed that cognitive intervention failed to improve depression in AD (Hill et al., 2017). Depression can increase the risk of progression to dementia in individuals with MCI (Baruch et al., 2019). Thus, if cognitive intervention improved depression in the early stage, progression to dementia may be reduced. For individuals with AD, subjective measures of depression and instrumental activities of daily living might be limited.
Although we performed a comprehensive literature search and fully analyzed the resultant data, our meta-analysis has several limitations. First, there was no or low study heterogeneity for all outcomes, though as only subgroup analysis for combined interventions had high heterogeneity, the reliability of results may have been less affected. Besides, the limited number of studies might influence the inconsistency between the direct and indirect comparisons, especially those which compared the efficacy of the different approaches to cognitive intervention, and thus we believe more data are needed to directly compare the efficacy between different interventions. Moreover, although the results of Egger’ test suggested a low possibility of publication bias, it cannot be concluded that there is no funnel asymmetry since a limited number of studies were included for several meta-analyses. Meanwhile, as in most published meta-analyses, the literature search was limited to English-language articles. Lastly, most of the RCTs concentrated on short-term cognitive outcomes, so we lacked sufficient data to evaluate the clinical efficacy of long-term cognitive interventions, and to evaluate whether the effects are maintained in the long-term after the interventions are completed.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that cognitive interventions can improve cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, basic activities of daily living, and quality of life in individuals with AD. Combined intervention was the most effective cognitive intervention type, followed by CT, CS, and CR. However, the meta-analysis was limited by the fact that long-term effects were not reported. We believe that long-term follow-up and large samples are needed to further investigate the effects of cognitive interventions on these functions.
Data Availability
The data of original data was available in the Github (https://github.com/xiangchunchen2012/meta/tree/data/data) and computer code are available in the Github (https://github.com/xiangchunchen2012/meta/tree/data).
Change history
10 April 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09591-6
References
Arvanitakis, Z., Shah, R. C., & Bennett, D. A. (2019). Diagnosis and Management of Dementia: Review. JAMA, 322(16), 1589–1599. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4782
Bahar-Fuchs, A., Martyr, A., Goh, A. M., Sabates, J., & Clare, L. (2019). Cognitive Training for People with Mild to Moderate Dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD013069. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013069.pub2
Barban, F., Annicchiarico, R., Pantelopoulos, S., Federici, A., Perri, R., Fadda, L., et al. (2016). Protecting Cognition from Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Computerized Cognitive Training Combined with Reminiscence Therapy. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 31(4), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4328
Barban, F., Mancini, M., Cercignani, M., Adriano, F., Perri, R., Annicchiarico, R., et al. (2017). A Pilot Study on Brain Plasticity of Functional Connectivity Modulated by Cognitive Training in Mild Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment. Brain Sci, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci7050050
Baruch, N., Burgess, J., Pillai, M., & Allan, C. L. (2019). Treatment for Depression Comorbid with Dementia. Evid Based Ment Health, 22(4), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300113
Bergamaschi, S., Arcara, G., Calza, A., Villani, D., Orgeta, V., & Mondini, S. (2013). One-Year Repeated Cycles of Cognitive Training (Ct) for Alzheimer’s Disease. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 25(4), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-013-0065-2
Bherer, L. (2015). Cognitive Plasticity in Older Adults: Effects of Cognitive Training and Physical Exercise. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1337, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12682
Blanco-Silvente, L., Castells, X., Saez, M., Barcelo, M. A., Garre-Olmo, J., Vilalta-Franch, J., et al. (2017). Discontinuation, Efficacy, and Safety of Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of 43 Randomized Clinical Trials Enrolling 16 106 Patients. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 20(7), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyx012
Bottino, C. M., Carvalho, I. A., Alvarez, A. M., Avila, R., Zukauskas, P. R., Bustamante, S. E., et al. (2005). Cognitive Rehabilitation Combined with Drug Treatment in Alzheimer’s Disease Patients: A Pilot Study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 19(8), 861–869. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215505cr911oa
Brueggen, K., Kasper, E., Ochmann, S., Pfaff, H., Webel, S., Schneider, W., et al. (2017). Cognitive Rehabilitation in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Controlled Intervention Trial. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 57(4), 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160771
Buschert, V. C., Friese, U., Teipel, S. J., Schneider, P., Merensky, W., Rujescu, D., et al. (2011). Effects of a Newly Developed Cognitive Intervention in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 25(4), 679–694. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-2011-100999
Cafferata, R. M. T., Hicks, B., & von Bastian, C. C. (2021). Effectiveness of Cognitive Stimulation for Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(5), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000325
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. (2005). Simultaneous Comparison of Multiple Treatments: Combining Direct and Indirect Evidence. BMJ, 331(7521), 897–900. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897
Capotosto, E., Belacchi, C., Gardini, S., Faggian, S., Piras, F., Mantoan, V., et al. (2017). Cognitive Stimulation Therapy in the Italian Context: Its Efficacy in Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Measures in Older Adults with Dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 32(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4521
Casoli, T., Giuli, C., Balietti, M., Fabbietti, P., & Conti, F. (2020). Effect of a Cognitive Training Program on the Platelet App Ratio in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145110
Cheng, S. T. (2016). Cognitive Reserve and the Prevention of Dementia: The Role of Physical and Cognitive Activities. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(9), 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0721-2
Clare, L., Woods, R. T., Moniz Cook, E. D., Orrell, M., & Spector, A. (2003). Cognitive Rehabilitation and Cognitive Training for Early-Stage Alzheimer's Disease and Vascular Dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews(4), CD003260. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003260
Coen, R. F., Flynn, B., Rigney, E., O’Connor, E., Fitzgerald, L., Murray, C., et al. (2011). Efficacy of a Cognitive Stimulation Therapy Programme for People with Dementia. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0790966700012131
Cove, J., Jacobi, N., Donovan, H., Orrell, M., Stott, J., & Spector, A. (2014). Effectiveness of Weekly Cognitive Stimulation Therapy for People with Dementia and the Additional Impact of Enhancing Cognitive Stimulation Therapy with a Carer Training Program. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 9, 2143–2150. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S66232
Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., Chandler, J., Welch, V. A., Higgins, J. P., et al. (2019). Updated Guidance for Trusted Systematic Reviews: A New Edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, ED000142. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142
Davis, R. N., Massman, P. J., & Doody, R. S. (2001). Cognitive Intervention in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002093-200101000-00001
Dubois, B., Feldman, H. H., Jacova, C., Dekosky, S. T., Barberger-Gateau, P., Cummings, J., et al. (2007). Research Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: Revising the Nincds-Adrda Criteria. Lancet Neurology, 6(8), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70178-3
Fernandez-Calvo, B., Contador, I., Ramos, F., Olazaran, J., Mograbi, D. C., & Morris, R. G. (2015). Effect of Unawareness on Rehabilitation Outcome in a Randomised Controlled Trial of Multicomponent Intervention for Patients with Mild Alzheimer’s Disease. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 25(3), 448–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.948461
Fonte, C., Smania, N., Pedrinolla, A., Munari, D., Gandolfi, M., Picelli, A., et al. (2019). Comparison between Physical and Cognitive Treatment in Patients with Mci and Alzheimer’s Disease. Aging, 11(10), 3138–3155. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.101970
Gavelin, H. M., Dong, C., Minkov, R., Bahar-Fuchs, A., Ellis, K. A., Lautenschlager, N. T., et al. (2021). Combined Physical and Cognitive Training for Older Adults with and without Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ageing Research Reviews, 66, 101232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2020.101232
Giovagnoli, A. R., Manfredi, V., Parente, A., Schifano, L., Oliveri, S., & Avanzini, G. (2017). Cognitive Training in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Controlled Randomized Study. Neurological Sciences, 38(8), 1485–1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-3003-9
Giuli, C., Papa, R., Lattanzio, F., & Postacchini, D. (2016). The Effects of Cognitive Training for Elderly: Results from My Mind Project. Rejuvenation Res, 19(6), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2015.1791
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Schunemann, H. J., Tugwell, P., & Knottnerus, A. (2011). Grade Guidelines: A New Series of Articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 380–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Pres.
Higgins, J. P., Jackson, D., Barrett, J. K., Lu, G., Ades, A. E., & White, I. R. (2012). Consistency and Inconsistency in Network Meta-Analysis: Concepts and Models for Multi-Arm Studies. Res Synth Methods, 3(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1044
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Hill, N. T., Mowszowski, L., Naismith, S. L., Chadwick, V. L., Valenzuela, M., & Lampit, A. (2017). Computerized Cognitive Training in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(4), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030360
Huntley, J. D., Hampshire, A., Bor, D., Owen, A., & Howard, R. J. (2017). Adaptive Working Memory Strategy Training in Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Randomised Controlled Trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 210(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.182048
Ismail, Z., Elbayoumi, H., Fischer, C. E., Hogan, D. B., Millikin, C. P., Schweizer, T., et al. (2017). Prevalence of Depression in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3162
Jelcic, N., Agostini, M., Meneghello, F., Busse, C., Parise, S., Galano, A., et al. (2014). Feasibility and Efficacy of Cognitive Telerehabilitation in Early Alzheimer’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 9, 1605–1611. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S68145
Jelcic, N., Cagnin, A., Meneghello, F., Turolla, A., Ermani, M., & Dam, M. (2012). Effects of Lexical-Semantic Treatment on Memory in Early Alzheimer Disease: An Observer-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 26(8), 949–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968312440146
Jia, J., Wei, C., Chen, S., Li, F., Tang, Y., Qin, W., et al. (2018). The Cost of Alzheimer’s Disease in China and Re-Estimation of Costs Worldwide. Alzheimers Dement, 14(4), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2017.12.006
Justo-Henriques, S. I., Perez-Saez, E., Marques-Castro, A. E., & Carvalho, J. O. (2022). Effectiveness of a Year-Long Individual Cognitive Stimulation Program in Portuguese Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B: Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2021.2023458
Kang, M. J., Kim, S. M., Han, S. E., Bae, J. H., Yu, W. J., Park, M. Y., et al. (2019). Effect of Paper-Based Cognitive Training in Early Stage of Alzheimer’s Dementia. Dement Neurocogn Disord, 18(2), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2019.18.2.62
Kim, D. (2020). The Effects of a Recollection-Based Occupational Therapy Program of Alzheimer’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Occupational Therapy International, 2020, 6305727. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6305727
Kim, H. J., Yang, Y., Oh, J. G., Oh, S., Choi, H., Kim, K. H., et al. (2016). Effectiveness of a Community-Based Multidomain Cognitive Intervention Program in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Geriatr Gerontol Int, 16(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12453
Kurth, S., Wojtasik, V., Lekeu, F., Quittre, A., Olivier, C., Godichard, V., et al. (2021). Efficacy of Cognitive Rehabilitation Versus Usual Treatment at Home in Patients with Early Stages of Alzheimer Disease. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 34(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988720924721
Lacreuse, A., Raz, N., Schmidtke, D., Hopkins, W. D., & Herndon, J. G. (2020). Age-Related Decline in Executive Function as a Hallmark of Cognitive Ageing in Primates: An Overview of Cognitive and Neurobiological Studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 375(1811), 20190618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0618
Lampit, A., Hallock, H., & Valenzuela, M. (2014). Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Modifiers. PLoS Medicine, 11(11), e1001756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756
Lee, G. Y., Yip, C. C., Yu, E. C., & Man, D. W. (2013). Evaluation of a Computer-Assisted Errorless Learning-Based Memory Training Program for Patients with Early Alzheimer’s Disease in Hong Kong: A Pilot Study. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 8, 623–633. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S45726
Liang, J. H., Shen, W. T., Li, J. Y., Qu, X. Y., Li, J., Jia, R. X., et al. (2019). The Optimal Treatment for Improving Cognitive Function in Elder People with Mild Cognitive Impairment Incorporating Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Ageing Res Rev, 51, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2019.01.009
Livingston, G., Huntley, J., Sommerlad, A., Ames, D., Ballard, C., Banerjee, S., et al. (2020). Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care: 2020 Report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet, 396(10248), 413–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6
Lopez, C., Sanchez, J. L., & Martin, J. (2020). The Effect of Cognitive Stimulation on the Progression of Cognitive Impairment in Subjects with Alzheimer's Disease. Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1710510
Luttenberger, K., Hofner, B., & Graessel, E. (2012). Are the Effects of a Non-Drug Multimodal Activation Therapy of Dementia Sustainable? Follow-up Study 10 Months after Completion of a Randomised Controlled Trial. BMC Neurology, 12, 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-12-151
Maci, T., Pira, F. L., Quattrocchi, G., Nuovo, S. D., Perciavalle, V., & Zappia, M. (2012). Physical and Cognitive Stimulation in Alzheimer Disease. The Gaia Project: A Pilot Study. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, 27(2), 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317512440493
Mapelli, D., Di Rosa, E., Nocita, R., & Sava, D. (2013). Cognitive Stimulation in Patients with Dementia: Randomized Controlled Trial. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, 3(1), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353457
Mavridis, D., & Salanti, G. (2013). A Practical Introduction to Multivariate Meta-Analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 22(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280211432219
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D., & Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: Report of the Nincds-Adrda Work Group under the Auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology, 34(7), 939–944. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.34.7.939
Morze, J., Wittenbecher, C., Schwingshackl, L., Danielewicz, A., Rynkiewicz, A., Hu, F. B., et al. (2022). Metabolomics and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Diabetes Care, 45(4), 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-1705
Niu, Y. X., Tan, J. P., Guan, J. Q., Zhang, Z. Q., & Wang, L. N. (2010). Cognitive Stimulation Therapy in the Treatment of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(12), 1102–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215510376004
Okamura, H., Otani, M., Shimoyama, N., & Fujii, T. (2018). Combined Exercise and Cognitive Training System for Dementia Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 45(5–6), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1159/000490613
Oliveira, J., Gamito, P., Souto, T., Conde, R., Ferreira, M., Corotnean, T., et al. (2021). Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Stimulation on People with Mild to Moderate Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105290
Orgeta, V., McDonald, K. R., Poliakoff, E., Hindle, J. V., Clare, L., & Leroi, I. (2020). Cognitive Training Interventions for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, CD011961. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011961.pub2
Orrell, M., Aguirre, E., Spector, A., Hoare, Z., Woods, R. T., Streater, A., et al. (2014). Maintenance Cognitive Stimulation Therapy for Dementia: Single-Blind, Multicentre, Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(6), 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.137414
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021a). The Prisma 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021b). Prisma 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ, 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Petersen, R. C., Lopez, O., Armstrong, M. J., Getchius, T. S. D., Ganguli, M., Gloss, D., et al. (2018). Practice Guideline Update Summary: Mild Cognitive Impairment: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 90(3), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004826
Sado, M., Funaki, K., Ninomiya, A., Knapp, M., & Mimura, M. (2020). Does the Combination of the Cognitive Interventions Improve the Function of Daily Living and Save the Long-Term Care Cost? A Pilot Study of Effectiveness and Cost Saving Analysis of “Learning Therapy” for People with Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 74(3), 775–784. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-190886
Salanti, G., Ades, A. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2011). Graphical Methods and Numerical Summaries for Presenting Results from Multiple-Treatment Meta-Analysis: An Overview and Tutorial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016
Sherman, D. S., Mauser, J., Nuno, M., & Sherzai, D. (2017). The Efficacy of Cognitive Intervention in Mild Cognitive Impairment (Mci): A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes on Neuropsychological Measures. Neuropsychology Review, 27(4), 440–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-017-9363-3
Shyu, Y. L., Lin, C. C., Kwok, Y. T., Shyu, H. Y., & Kuo, L. M. (2022). A Community-Based Computerised Cognitive Training Program for Older Persons with Mild Dementia: A Pilot Study. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 41(1), e82–e93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12962
Spector, A., Thorgrimsen, L., Woods, B., Royan, L., Davies, S., Butterworth, M., et al. (2003). Efficacy of an Evidence-Based Cognitive Stimulation Therapy Programme for People with Dementia: Randomised Controlled Trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.183.3.248
Sterne, J. A., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., et al. (2011). Recommendations for Examining and Interpreting Funnel Plot Asymmetry in Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials. BMJ, 343, d4002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002
Tanaka, S., Honda, S., Nakano, H., Sato, Y., Araya, K., Yamaguchi, H. (2017). Comparison between group and personal rehabilitation for dementia in a geriatric health service facility: single-blinded randomized controlled study. Psychogeriatrics, 17(3),177–185.
Tanaka, S., Yamagami, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2021). Effects of a Group-Based Physical and Cognitive Intervention on Social Activity and Quality of Life for Elderly People with Dementia in a Geriatric Health Service Facility: A Quasi-Randomised Controlled Trial. Psychogeriatrics, 21(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12627
Tarraga, L., Boada, M., Modinos, G., Espinosa, A., Diego, S., Morera, A., et al. (2006). A Randomised Pilot Study to Assess the Efficacy of an Interactive, Multimedia Tool of Cognitive Stimulation in Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 77(10), 1116–1121. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.086074
Tokuchi, R., Hishikawa, N., Matsuzono, K., Takao, Y., Wakutani, Y., Sato, K., et al. (2016). Cognitive and Affective Benefits of Combination Therapy with Galantamine Plus Cognitive Rehabilitation for Alzheimer’s Disease. Geriatr Gerontol Int, 16(4), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12488
Trebbastoni, A., Imbriano, L., Podda, L., Rendace, L., Sacchetti, M. L., Campanelli, A., et al. (2018). Cognitive Training in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease: Findings of a 12-Month Randomized Controlled Trial. Curr Alzheimer Res, 15(5), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205014666171113105044
van Valkenhoef, G., Dias, S., Ades, A. E., & Welton, N. J. (2016). Automated Generation of Node-Splitting Models for Assessment of Inconsistency in Network Meta-Analysis. Res Synth Methods, 7(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1167
Venturelli, M., Sollima, A., Ce, E., Limonta, E., Bisconti, A. V., Brasioli, A., et al. (2016). Effectiveness of Exercise- and Cognitive-Based Treatments on Salivary Cortisol Levels and Sundowning Syndrome Symptoms in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 53(4), 1631–1640. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160392
Wang, J. J. (2007). Group Reminiscence Therapy for Cognitive and Affective Function of Demented Elderly in Taiwan. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22(12), 1235–1240. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1821
Yamanaka, K., Kawano, Y., Noguchi, D., Nakaaki, S., Watanabe, N., Amano, T., et al. (2013). Effects of Cognitive Stimulation Therapy Japanese Version (Cst-J) for People with Dementia: A Single-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial. Aging & Mental Health, 17(5), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.777395
Young, D. K., Ng, P. Y., Kwok, T., Ho, F., Cheng, D., Mak, V., et al. (2019). The Effects of an Expanded Cognitive Stimulation Therapy Model on the Improvement of Cognitive Ability of Elderly with Mild Stage Dementia Living in a Community - a Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial. Aging & Mental Health, 23(7), 855–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2018.1471586
Funding
This work was supported by National Key Technology Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC2002300, 2018YFC2002302, 2020YFC2004102), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC: 81972144, 31872785, 81972148). The sponsors had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
C.X. and Y.Z.: takes responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation, drafting the article. Y.Z.: takes responsibility for the design of the study, full text evaluation and guidance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Xiang, C., Zhang, Y. Comparison of Cognitive Intervention Strategies for Individuals With Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev 34, 402–416 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09584-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09584-5