MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4211184021 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006489.pub3

Exercise programs for people with dementia

2013· review· en· W4211184021 sur OpenAlexaff
Dorothy Forbes, Emily Thiessen, Catherine Blake, Scott C. Forbes, Sean C. Forbes

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDementiaMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyRandomized controlled trialActivities of daily livingInclusion (mineral)Depression (economics)CognitionPhysical therapyPsychiatryPsychologyNursingDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This is an update of our previous 2008 review. Several recent trials and systematic reviews of the impact of exercise on people with dementia are reporting promising findings. OBJECTIVES: Primary: Do exercise programs for older people with dementia improve cognition, activities of daily living (ADLs), challenging behaviour, depression, and mortality in older people with dementia?Secondary: Do exercise programs for older people with dementia have an indirect impact on family caregivers' burden, quality of life, and mortality?Do exercise programs for older people with dementia reduce the use of healthcare services (e.g. visits to the emergency department) by participants and their family caregivers? SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials for inclusion in the review by searching ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 4 September 2011, and again on 13 August 2012. The search terms used were: 'physical activity' OR exercise OR cycling OR swim* OR gym* OR walk* OR danc* OR yoga OR 'tai chi'. SELECTION CRITERIA: In this review, we included randomized controlled trials in which older people, diagnosed with dementia, were allocated either to exercise programs or to control groups (usual care or social contact/activities) with the aim of improving cognition, ADLs, behaviour, depression, and mortality. Secondary outcomes related to the family caregiver(s) and included caregiver burden, quality of life, mortality, and use of healthcare services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Independently, at least two authors assessed the retrieved articles for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Data were analysed for summary effects using RevMan 5.1 software. We calculated mean differences or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and synthesized data for each outcome using a fixed-effect model, unless there was substantial heterogeneity between studies, when we used a random-effects model. We planned to explore heterogeneity in relation to severity and type of dementia, and type, frequency, and duration of exercise program. We also evaluated adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials with 937 participants met the inclusion criteria. However, the required data from three trials and some of the data from a fourth trial were not published and not made available. The included trials were highly heterogeneous in terms of subtype and severity of participants' dementia, and type, duration and frequency of exercise. Only two trials included participants living at home. Our meta-analysis suggested that exercise programs might have a significant impact on improving cognitive functioning (eight trials, 329 participants; SMD 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.09). However, there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2) value 80%), most of which we were unable to explain. We repeated the analysis omitting one trial, an outlier, that included only participants with moderate or severe dementia. This reduced the heterogeneity somewhat (I(2) value 68%), and produced a result that was no longer significant (seven trials, 308 participants; SMD 0.31, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.74). We found a significant effect of exercise programs on the ability of people with dementia to perform ADLs (six studies, 289 participants; SMD 0.68, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.27). However, again we observed considerable unexplained statistical heterogeneity (I(2) value 77%) in this meta-analysis. This means that there is a need for caution in interpreting these findings. In further analyses, we found that the burden experienced by informal caregivers providing care in the home may be reduced when they supervise the participation of the family member with dementia in an exercise program (one study, 40 participants; MD -15.30, 95% CI -24.73 to -5.87), but we found no significant effect of exercise on challenging behaviours (one study, 110 participants; MD -0.60, 95% CI -4.22 to 3.02), or depression (six studies, 341 participants; MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07) . We could not examine the remaining outcomes, quality of life, mortality, and healthcare costs, as either the appropriate data were not reported, or we did not retrieve trials that examined these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is promising evidence that exercise programs can have a significant impact in improving ability to perform ADLs and possibly in improving cognition in people with dementia, although some caution is advised in interpreting these findings. The programs revealed no significant effect on challenging behaviours or depression. There was little or no evidence regarding the remaining outcomes of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,371
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0270,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,011

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,129
Tête enseignante GPT0,375
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations156
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207