New guidelines for the effectiveness of exercise in the prevention of dementia: Implications for psychiatry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editors, We recently published evidence-based guidelines for the role of exercise in the prevention of dementia.1 The guidelines combined an umbrella review and expert consensus, and has important implications for psychiatry. Evidence from published studies was evaluated using the GRADE assessment. We found scarce and relatively low-quality evidence in the literature, particularly for the primary prevention of dementia. Our GRADE-informed evidence synthesis yielded the following conclusions: For Primary prevention of dementia: Physical activity may be considered for the primary prevention of dementia. In people without dementia or MCI, exercise may be no better than health education for the primary prevention of dementia and MCI. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Very low for physical activity; very low for exercise. For Secondary prevention of dementia: In people with MCI there is continued uncertainty about the role of physical activity and exercise in slowing the conversion to dementia. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Very low for physical activity; very low for exercise. For Tertiary prevention of dementia: In people with moderate dementia, physical activity/exercise could be considered for maintaining cognition and exercise could be considered for stabilizing disability compared to usual care. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Exercise: very low for cognitive outcomes; low for disability. Following a consensus process, we recommended physical activity/exercise for all three purposes, namely primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention (improve cognition and reduce disability) of dementia. The recommendation of exercise was largely contingent on its positive effects on mental health,2,3 in conjunction with the extensive body of evidence linking mental disorder with dementia.4 The guidelines highlight the need for further research on multidisciplinary interventions for both the primary and secondary prevention of dementia. A question remains whether the positive effect of physical activity on mood/behaviour applies to the MCI group, as it does to the dementia group. More research is required in people with established dementia and in less common forms of dementia. The guidelines also make an implicit research recommendation in support of heurism, in the sense that they integrate the evidence-based expectation that exercise is likely to be beneficial both for mental and physical health. Indeed, employing heurism may be inherently necessary in prevention research.5 Overall, these guidelines offer an evidence-based insight into the effectiveness of physical activity/exercise for the prevention (primary, secondary, and tertiary) of dementia. Importantly, they necessitate the inclusion of mental health in a multi-component approach. In doing so, they emphasize the necessity of mental health promotion and mental illness prevention in the prevention and management of dementia.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».