Everyday impact of cognitive interventions in mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Cognitive interventions in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) seek to ameliorate cognitive symptoms in the condition. Cognitive interventions may or may not generalize beyond cognitive outcomes to everyday life. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to assess the effect of cognitive interventions compared to a control group in MCI on generalizability outcome measures [activities of daily living (ADLs), mood, quality of life (QOL), and metacognition] rather than cognitive outcomes alone. PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE and PsychInfo were utilized as data sources to locate references related to cognitive interventions in individuals with MCI. The cognitive intervention study was required to have a control or alternative treatment comparison group to be included. Thirty articles met criteria, including six computerized cognitive interventions, 14 therapist-based interventions, and 10 multimodal (i.e., cognitive intervention plus an additional intervention) studies. Small, but significant overall median effects were seen for ADLs (d = 0.23), mood (d = 0.16), and metacognitive outcomes (d = 0.30), but not for QOL (d = 0.10). Computerized studies appeared to benefit mood (depression, anxiety, and apathy) compared to controls, while therapist-based interventions and multimodal interventions had more impact on ADLs and metacognitive outcomes than control conditions. The results are encouraging that cognitive interventions in MCI may impact everyday life, but considerably more research is needed. The current review and meta-analysis is limited by our use of only PsychInfo and MEDLINE databases, our inability to read full text non-English articles, and our reliance on only published data to complete effect sizes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A meta-analysis of 30 trials of computerised, therapy-based, and multimodal interventions for mild cognitive impairment found an effect on activities of daily living (d=0.23) and metacognitive outcomes (d=0.30) compared with control.
“A meta-analysis of 30 trials of computerised, therapy-based and multimodal interventions for mild cognitive impairment found an effect on activities of daily living (d=0·23) and metacognitive outcomes (d=0·30) compared to control.56”
From Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission (2020) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 132 · Cited by 169
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hedges L Olkin I 1985 Statistical methods for meta-analysis New York Academic Press
- Hutton JT 1990 Alzheimer’s disease Rakel RE Conn’s Current Therapy 778 781 Philadelphia W. B. Saunders
- Authors
- Chandler, M. J., Parks, A. C., Marsiske, M., Rotblatt, L. J., & Smith, G. E.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chandler, M. J.
- Venue
- Neuropsychology Review
- Published
- 2016-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 225-251
- ISSN
- 1040-7308 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6660
- PMC
- PMC5048589
- OpenAlex
- W2511779346
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 132
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Neuropsychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Keywords
- mild cognitive impairment, cognitive intervention, activities of daily living, mood, quality of life, metacognition, computerized cognitive training, multimodal intervention, depression, anxiety, apathy
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Humans, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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
