Cited by 67Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Systematic review of strengths and limitations of Randomized Controlled Trials for non-pharmacological interventions in mild cognitive impairment: Focus on Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Horr, T., Messinger-Rapport, B., Pillai, Jagan A.·2015·The Journal of nutrition, health and aging

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological interventions may improve cognition and quality of life, reduce disruptive behaviors, slow progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to dementia, and delay institutionalization. It is important to look at their trial designs as well as outcomes to understand the state of the evidence supporting non-pharmacological interventions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). An analysis of trial design strengths and limitations may help researchers clarify treatment effect and design future studies of non-pharmacological interventions for MCI related to AD. METHODS: A systematic review of the methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) targeting physical activity, cognitive interventions, and socialization among subjects with MCI in AD reported until March 2014 was undertaken. The primary outcome was CONSORT 2010 reporting quality. Secondary outcomes were qualitative assessments of specific methodology problems. RESULTS: 23 RCT studies met criteria for this review. Eight focused on physical activity, fourteen on cognitive interventions, and one on the effects of socialization. Most studies found a benefit with the intervention compared to control. CONSORT reporting quality of physical activity interventions was higher than that of cognitive interventions. Reporting quality of recent studies was higher than older studies, particularly with respect to sample size, control characteristics, and methodology of intervention training and delivery. However, the heterogeneity of subjects identified as having MCI and variability in interventions and outcomes continued to limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The role for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI is promising. Future studies of RCTs for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI related to AD may benefit by addressing design limitations.

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 · 10.1007/s12603-014-0565-6

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • There is some evidence that cognitive training and physical interventions may improve cognitive abilities in individuals with MCI, but the effects on daily functioning are small.

    “There is some evidence that cognitive training and physical interventions may improve cognitive abilities in individuals with MCI; however, the effects on daily functioning are small.”

    From Psychotherapeutic interventions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results sections on cognitive and physical activity interventions report cognitive benefits in some people with MCI, supporting the claim's cautious first half (page not provided). The Results discussion of functional improvement describes difficulties measuring subtle changes, while study summaries report some improvements in activities of daily living; the review does not establish that effects on daily functioning are small. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

2 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horr, T., Messinger-Rapport, B., & Pillai, J. A.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Pillai, Jagan A.
Venue
The Journal of nutrition, health and aging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
141-153
ISSN
1279-7707 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062745761
Cited by
67
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The journal of nutrition health & aging (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, non-pharmacological treatment, randomized controlled trials, trial design quality, physical activity interventions, cognitive intervention, socialization, dementia prevention, generalizability
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Cognition, Humans, Institutionalization, Quality of Life, 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