Cited by 182Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression

Open access
Huntley, J D, Gould, R L, Liu, K, Smith, M, Howard, R J·2015·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy of cognitive interventions on improving general cognition in dementia. METHOD: Online literature databases and trial registers, previous systematic reviews and leading journals were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. A systematic review, random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Cognitive interventions were categorised as: cognitive stimulation (CS), involving a range of social and cognitive activities to stimulate multiple cognitive domains; cognitive training (CT), involving repeated practice of standardised tasks targeting a specific cognitive function; cognitive rehabilitation (CR), which takes a person-centred approach to target impaired function; or mixed CT and stimulation (MCTS). Separate analyses were conducted for general cognitive outcome measures and for studies using 'active' (designed to control for non-specific therapeutic effects) and non-active (minimal or no intervention) control groups. RESULTS: 33 studies were included. Significant positive effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were found for CS with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) (g=0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66; p<0.001) compared to non-active controls and (g=0.35, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64; p=0.019) compared to active controls. Significant benefit was also seen with the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale-Cognition (ADAS-Cog) (g=-0.26, 95% CI -0.445 to -0.08; p=0.005). There was no evidence that CT or MCTS produced significant improvements on general cognition outcomes and not enough CR studies for meta-analysis. The lowest accepted minimum clinically important difference was reached in 11/17 CS studies for the MMSE, but only 2/9 studies for the ADAS-Cog. Additionally, 95% prediction intervals suggested that although statistically significant, CS may not lead to benefits on the ADAS-Cog in all clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: CS improves scores on MMSE and ADAS-Cog in dementia, but benefits on the ADAS-Cog are generally not clinically significant and difficulties with blinding of patients and use of adequate placebo controls make comparison with the results of dementia drug treatments problematic.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247

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.

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?

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 65 · Cited by 182

Authors
Huntley, J. D., Gould, R. L., Liu, K., Smith, M., & Howard, R. J.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Huntley, J D
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-04
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
e005247
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057843174
Cited by
182
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2013-17-024, CL-2013-17-011, ACF-2007-17-013)
  • King's College London
  • King's Health Partners
  • Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
  • Medical Research Council (G0901982)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
cognitive intervention, dementia, cognitive stimulation, cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation, global cognition, Alzheimer's disease, Mini-Mental State Examination, minimal clinically important difference
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition Disorders, Dementia, Humans, Regression Analysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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