MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116861306 · doi:10.1159/000316119

Nonpharmacological Therapies in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review of Efficacy

2010· review· en· W2116861306 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Olazarán, ‌Barry Reisberg, Linda Clare, Isabel Cruz, Jordi Peña‐Casanova, Teodoro del Ser, Bob Woods, Cornelia Beck, Stefanie Auer, Claudia K. Y. Lai, Aimee Spector, Sam Fazio, John Bond, Miia Kivipelto, Henry Brodaty, José Manuel Casas Rojo, Helen Collins, Linda Teri, Mary Mittelman, Martin Orrell, Howard Feldman, Rubén Múñiz

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionDementiaRandomized controlled trialCognitive trainingPsychologyCognitionMeta-analysisDonepezilActivities of daily livingAlzheimer's diseaseSystematic reviewIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)MedicineClinical psychologyGerontologyMEDLINEPhysical therapyPsychiatryDiseasePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Nonpharmacological therapies (NPTs) can improve the quality of life (QoL) of people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their carers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the best evidence on the effects of NPTs in AD and related disorders (ADRD) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire field. METHODS: Existing reviews and major electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The deadline for study inclusion was September 15, 2008. Intervention categories and outcome domains were predefined by consensus. Two researchers working together detected 1,313 candidate studies of which 179 RCTs belonging to 26 intervention categories were selected. Cognitive deterioration had to be documented in all participants, and degenerative etiology (indicating dementia) had to be present or presumed in at least 80% of the subjects. Evidence tables, meta-analysis and summaries of results were elaborated by the first author and reviewed by author subgroups. Methods for rating level of evidence and grading practice recommendations were adapted from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. RESULTS: Grade A treatment recommendation was achieved for institutionalization delay (multicomponent interventions for the caregiver, CG). Grade B recommendation was reached for the person with dementia (PWD) for: improvement in cognition (cognitive training, cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the PWD); activities of daily living (ADL) (ADL training, multicomponent interventions for the PWD); behavior (cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the PWD, behavioral interventions, professional CG training); mood (multicomponent interventions for the PWD); QoL (multicomponent interventions for PWD and CG) and restraint prevention (professional CG training); for the CG, grade B was also reached for: CG mood (CG education, CG support, multicomponent interventions for the CG); CG psychological well-being (cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the CG); CG QoL (multicomponent interventions for PWD and CG). CONCLUSION: NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.014
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations925
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207