CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 342Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and Testing

Cognitive training for people with mild to moderate dementia

Open access
Bahar-Fuchs, Alex, Martyr, Anthony, Goh, Anita MY, Sabates, Julieta, Clare, Linda·2019·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013069.pub2PMC PMC6433473
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment, a defining feature of dementia, plays an important role in the compromised functional independence that characterises the condition. Cognitive training (CT) is an approach that uses guided practice on structured tasks with the direct aim of improving or maintaining cognitive abilities. OBJECTIVES: • To assess effects of CT on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers.• To compare effects of CT with those of other non-pharmacological interventions, including cognitive stimulation or rehabilitation, for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers.• To identify and explore factors related to intervention and trial design that may be associated with the efficacy of CT for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, on 5 July 2018. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified through monthly searches of several major healthcare databases and numerous trial registries and grey literature sources. In addition to this, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's trials portal, ICTRP, to ensure that searches were comprehensive and up-to-date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that described interventions for people with mild to moderate dementia and compared CT versus a control or alternative intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted relevant data from published manuscripts and through contact with trial authors if required. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We divided comparison conditions into active or passive control conditions and alternative treatments. We used a large number of measures and data to evaluate 19 outcomes at end of treatment, as well as 16 outcomes at follow-up in the medium term; we pooled this information in meta-analyses. We calculated pooled estimates of treatment effect using a random-effects model, and we estimated statistical heterogeneity using a standard Chi² statistic. We graded the evidence using GradePro. MAIN RESULTS: The 33 included trials were published between 1988 and 2018 and were conducted in 12 countries; most were unregistered, parallel-group, single-site RCTs, with samples ranging from 12 to 653 participants. Interventions were between two and 104 weeks long. We classified most experimental interventions as 'straight CT', but we classified some as 'augmented CT', and about two-thirds as multi-domain interventions. Researchers investigated 18 passive and 13 active control conditions, along with 15 alternative treatment conditions, including occupational therapy, mindfulness, reminiscence therapy, and others.The methodological quality of studies varied, but we rated nearly all studies as having high or unclear risk of selection bias due to lack of allocation concealment, and high or unclear risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel.We used data from 32 studies in the meta-analysis of at least one outcome. Relative to a control condition, we found moderate-quality evidence showing a small to moderate effect of CT on our first primary outcome, composite measure of global cognition at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.62), and high-quality evidence showing a moderate effect on the secondary outcome of verbal semantic fluency (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) at end of treatment, with these gains retained in the medium term (3 to 12 months post treatment). In relation to many other outcomes, including our second primary outcome of clinical disease severity in the medium term, the quality of evidence was very low, so we were unable to determine whether CT was associated with any meaningful gains.When compared with an alternative treatment, we found that CT may have little to no effect on our first primary outcome of global cognition at end of treatment (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.64), but the quality of evidence was low. No evidence was available to assess our second primary outcome of clinical disease severity in the medium term. We found moderate-quality evidence showing that CT was associated with improved mood of the caregiver at end of treatment, but this was based on a single trial. The quality of evidence in relation to many other outcomes at end of treatment and in the medium term was too low for us to determine whether CT was associated with any gains, but we are moderately confident that CT did not lead to any gains in mood, behavioural and psychological symptoms, or capacity to perform activities of daily living. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Relative to a control intervention, but not to a variety of alternative treatments, CT is probably associated with small to mo

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd013069.pub2

Cites

231 of 231 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No advances have been reported in Aβ therapeutics, with negative results from phase 3 trials of monoclonal antibodies (eg, solanezumab, crenezumab) and inhibitors of β-secretase.

    “No advances have been reported in Aβ therapeutics, with negative results from phase 3 trials of monoclonal antibodies (eg, solanezumab, crenezumab) and inhibitors of β-secretase, a protease involved in the production of Aβ peptides.202”

    From Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission (2020) · cites this paper as [202]

    In “Why it is important to do this review” (page not available), the paper says disease-modifying Alzheimer’s treatment trials have generally failed to improve clinically meaningful outcomes. It does not identify phase 3 results for solanezumab, crenezumab, or β-secretase inhibitors, or explain β-secretase’s role in Aβ production. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 234 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bernhardt 2002 {published data only} Bernhardt T, Maurer K, Froelich L. Influence of a memory training program on attention and memory performance of patients with dementia [German]. Zeitschrift fuer Gerontologie und Geriatrie 2001;35:821-31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bahar-Fuchs, A., Martyr, A., Goh, A. M., Sabates, J., & Clare, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Melbourne; Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry; 34-54 Poplar Road Parkville Melbourne Victoria Australia 3052
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-25
Volume
2019
Issue
3
Pages
CD013069-CD013069
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd013069.pub2
PMC
PMC6433473
OpenAlex
W2815156057
Cited by
342
References
234
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alzheimer's Association
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0616-10088)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
cognitive training, mild to moderate dementia, cognitive stimulation, cognitive rehabilitation, non-pharmacological treatment, caregivers, caregiver burden, functional independence, cognitive impairment, multidomain intervention, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Dementia, Humans, Middle Aged, Task Performance and Analysis, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review