Effects of non-pharmacological interventions on cognitive function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild cognitive impairment: A network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Non-pharmacological intervention represents a significant therapeutic modality for the cognitive function intervention management of patients with type 2 diabetes accompanied by mild cognitive impairment. However, it remains unclear which intervention measure is the most effective. The objective of this study is to compare and rank the influences of various non-pharmacological interventions on the cognitive function of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: Eight databases from the establishment of the database to November 2024 were retrieved. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the RoB2.0 tool. Paired Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata/SE 15.1 software, and Network Meta-analysis was performed using R 4.3.1 software. RESULTS: A total of 25 literatures were incorporated, encompassing 5 intervention measures, with a sample size of 2,446 cases. The results indicated that in the pairwise meta-analysis, when the MoCA score was used as the outcome indicator, cognitive training [MD = 2.3, 95% CI (1.64, 2.96), P < 0.01], exercise therapy [MD = 2.11, 95% CI (1.30, 2.92), P < 0.01], TCM therapy [MD = 2.28, 95% CI (0.76, 3.81), P < 0.01], and comprehensive intervention [MD = 1.98, 95% CI (1.53, 2.48), P < 0.01] were more effective in improving the cognitive status of patients than the control group; when the MMSE was used as the outcome indicator, cognitive training [MD = 2.03 95% CI (1.57, 2.49), P < 0.01], exercise therapy [MD = 2.78, 95% CI (1.48, 4.08), P < 0.01], and TCM therapy [MD = 2.09, 95% CI (1.46, 2.73), P < 0.01] were more effective in improving the cognitive status of patients than the control group. The SUCRA ranking revealed that in terms of improving the MoCA scores, the comprehensive intervention (SUCRA 76.9%), cognitive training (SUCRA 63.3%), and TCM therapy (SUCRA 57.9%) were the top 3 preferred treatment measures; for improving the MMSE scores, exercise therapy (SUCRA 78.0%) and cognitive training (SUCRA 73.8%) were the preferred treatment measures. CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that cognitive training, exercise therapy, and TCM therapy might be relatively effective intervention approaches for improving the cognitive function of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accompanied by mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and cognitive training could potentially be the most efficacious non-pharmacological treatment method. Constrained by the quantity and quality of the studies, more high-quality research is still required in the future to further validate this conclusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".