Cognition-Oriented Treatments for Older Adults: a Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews
- PMID: 32266520
- PMCID: PMC7305099
- DOI: 10.1007/s11065-020-09434-8
Cognition-Oriented Treatments for Older Adults: a Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews
Abstract
Cognition-oriented treatments - commonly categorized as cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation and cognitive stimulation - are promising approaches for the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in older adults. We conducted a systematic overview of meta-analyses investigating the efficacy of cognition-oriented treatments on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in older adults with or without cognitive impairment. Review quality was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR). We identified 51 eligible reviews, 46 of which were included in the quantitative synthesis. The confidence ratings were "moderate" for 9 (20%), "low" for 13 (28%) and "critically low" for 24 (52%) of the 46 reviews. While most reviews provided pooled effect estimates for objective cognition, non-cognitive outcomes of potential relevance were more sparsely reported. The mean effect estimate on cognition was small for cognitive training in healthy older adults (mean Hedges' g = 0.32, range 0.13-0.64, 19 reviews), mild cognitive impairment (mean Hedges' g = 0.40, range 0.32-0.60, five reviews), and dementia (mean Hedges' g = 0.38, range 0.09-1.16, seven reviews), and small for cognitive stimulation in dementia (mean Hedges' g = 0.36, range 0.26-0.44, five reviews). Meta-regression revealed that higher AMSTAR score was associated with larger effect estimates for cognitive outcomes. The available evidence supports the efficacy of cognition-oriented treatments improving cognitive performance in older adults. The extent to which such effects are of clinical value remains unclear, due to the scarcity of high-quality evidence and heterogeneity in reported findings. An important avenue for future trials is to include relevant non-cognitive outcomes in a more consistent way and, for meta-analyses in the field, there is a need for better adherence to methodological standards. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084490.
Keywords: Cognitive rehabilitation; Cognitive stimulation; Cognitive training; Older adults; Overview; Systematic review.
Conflict of interest statement
ABF and JS are authors on one of the reviews included in this overview, HH is an author of two reviews, and AL is an author on three reviews included in this overview. They were not involved in the quality assessment of these reviews.
Figures





References
-
- Alves J, Magalhaes R, Thomas RE, Goncalves OF, Petrosyan A, Sampaio A. Is there evidence for cognitive intervention in Alzheimer disease? A systematic review of efficacy, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders. 2013;27(3):195–203. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31827bda55. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical