4.7 Review

Effective multicomponent interventions in comparison to active control and no interventions on physical capacity, cognitive function and instrumental activities of daily living in elderly people with and without mild impaired cognition - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

期刊

AGEING RESEARCH REVIEWS
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 1-14

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2018.04.002

关键词

Network meta-analysis; Ageing; Mild cognitive impairment; Multicomponent intervention; Instrumental activities of daily living

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multicomponent interventions (MCT) combine physical exercises and cognitive training and seem to be most effective in improving cognition in elderly people. However, literature is inconclusive if MCTs are superior to active comparison interventions, if delivery modes matter, and if people can transfer achieved effects to instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). This network meta-analysis aimed to a) identify MCTs that were effective on physical capacity and/or cognitive function and able to transfer these effects into IADL in elderly people with normal cognition (NC) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI); b) provide a rating on the best interventions per outcome; c) evaluate MCTs' mode of delivery. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing MCTs to active comparison or no treatments. Six studies in participants with MCI (n = 1088) and eleven studies in participants with NC (n = 670) were included. Five effective MCTs that were superior to physical exercises or cognitive training alone in improving physical capacity and/or cognitive function were detected, however none of these MCTs improved IADL. In people with NC MCI's performed separately or simultaneously were effective. However, in people with MCI MCTs performed separately were more effective. A framework needs to be developed to better understand the mediating effects of physical capacity and cognitive function on IADL and to design MCTs that effectively improve IADL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据