Cited by 10Human-Animal Interaction StudiesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy of animal-assisted therapy vs. pet-robot therapy in the management of dementia

Open access
Du, Hongdi, Bo, Lin, Lai, Xiaoxing, Zhu, Hongwei, Huo, Xiaopeng·2023·Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience

Abstract

Objective: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) and pet-robotic therapy (PRT) in the management of dementia. Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science (WoS) until October 13, 2022. Traditional meta-analysis was first conducted based on the random-effects model, then random network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative efficacy and rank probability of AAT and PRT. Results: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this network meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis revealed that PRT marginally benefited agitation alleviation compared with control (standard mean difference [SMD]: −0.37, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: −0.72 to −0.01) although both AAT and PRT did not improve cognitive function, reduce depression, and improve Quality of Life (QoL). The SUCRA probabilities indicated that PRT ranked better than AAT in agitation, cognitive function, and QoL, although there were no differences between the two therapies. Conclusion: The present network meta-analysis reveals that PRT may help alleviate agitated behaviors in people with dementia. However, future studies are warranted to establish evidence of the effectiveness of PRT and further evaluate the differences between different robot types in managing dementia.

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 · 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1095996

Cites

70 of 70 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Du, H., Bo, L., Lai, X., Zhu, H., & Huo, X.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Du, Hongdi
  • Huo, Xiaopeng
Venue
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Published
2023-05-31
Volume
15
Pages
1095996-1095996
ISSN
1663-4365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378901916
Cited by
10
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Peking Union Medical College Hospital (2022-PUMCH-B-031)
  • Peking Union Medical College
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
animal-assisted therapy, dementia, agitation, cognitive function, depression, quality of life, robot-assisted 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