Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
The association of cognitive stimulation and cognitive training did not result in better outcomes than single interventions.
“Some studies documented the association of CS and CT did not result in better outcomes than single interventions (73, 74).”
From The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
Cognitive stimulation has a small effect size on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale in patients with dementia.
“A recent meta-analysis showed that CS has a moderate effect size on the Mini Mental State Examination (75) and a small effect size on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (76), which represent two commonly-used general cognitive functioning outcomes, in patients with dementia (73).”
From The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
Cognitive stimulation improves general cognitive functioning in patients with mild-to-moderate dementia.
“Several studies reported an improvement of general cognitive functioning in patients with mild-to-moderate dementia after CS sessions of variable length (69–74).”
From The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
Cognitive stimulation has a moderate effect size on the Mini Mental State Examination in patients with dementia.
“A recent meta-analysis showed that CS has a moderate effect size on the Mini Mental State Examination (75) and a small effect size on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (76), which represent two commonly-used general cognitive functioning outcomes, in patients with dementia (73).”
From The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
High heterogeneity in duration of treatment, length and number of single sessions, and severity of dementia impedes any definite conclusion on the efficacy of cognitive stimulation and cognitive training interventions other than Cognitive Stimulation Therapy.
“In conclusion, while the CST program—a precise technique with a specific manual and training—has a robust evidence-based body of data, the high heterogeneity in terms of duration of treatment, length, and number of single sessions and severity of dementia impede any definite conclusion on the efficacy of other CS and CT interventions (73).”
From The Multidisciplinary Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia. A Narrative Review of Non-Pharmacological Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
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)
- PMC
- PMC4390716
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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