Suppr超能文献

认知干预能否改善痴呆症患者的一般认知能力?一项荟萃分析和元回归分析。

Do cognitive interventions improve general cognition in dementia? A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

作者信息

Huntley J D, Gould R L, Liu K, Smith M, Howard R J

机构信息

Department of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 2;5(4):e005247. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy of cognitive interventions on improving general cognition in dementia.

METHOD

Online literature databases and trial registers, previous systematic reviews and leading journals were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. A systematic review, random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Cognitive interventions were categorised as: cognitive stimulation (CS), involving a range of social and cognitive activities to stimulate multiple cognitive domains; cognitive training (CT), involving repeated practice of standardised tasks targeting a specific cognitive function; cognitive rehabilitation (CR), which takes a person-centred approach to target impaired function; or mixed  CT and stimulation (MCTS). Separate analyses were conducted for general cognitive outcome measures and for studies using 'active' (designed to control for non-specific therapeutic effects) and non-active (minimal or no intervention) control groups.

RESULTS

33 studies were included. Significant positive effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were found for CS with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) (g=0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66; p<0.001) compared to non-active controls and (g=0.35, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64; p=0.019) compared to active controls. Significant benefit was also seen with the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale-Cognition (ADAS-Cog) (g=-0.26, 95% CI -0.445 to -0.08; p=0.005). There was no evidence that CT or MCTS produced significant improvements on general cognition outcomes and not enough CR studies for meta-analysis. The lowest accepted minimum clinically important difference was reached in 11/17 CS studies for the MMSE, but only 2/9 studies for the ADAS-Cog. Additionally, 95% prediction intervals suggested that although statistically significant, CS may not lead to benefits on the ADAS-Cog in all clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

CS improves scores on MMSE and ADAS-Cog in dementia, but benefits on the ADAS-Cog are generally not clinically significant and difficulties with blinding of patients and use of adequate placebo controls make comparison with the results of dementia drug treatments problematic.

摘要

目的

回顾认知干预对改善痴呆症患者总体认知功能的疗效。

方法

检索在线文献数据库、试验注册库、既往系统评价以及主要期刊,查找相关随机对照试验。进行系统评价、随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归。认知干预分为以下几类:认知刺激(CS),涉及一系列社会和认知活动以刺激多个认知领域;认知训练(CT),涉及针对特定认知功能的标准化任务的重复练习;认知康复(CR),采用以人为本的方法针对受损功能;或混合认知训练与刺激(MCTS)。针对总体认知结果测量以及使用“主动”(旨在控制非特异性治疗效果)和“非主动”(最小干预或无干预)对照组的研究分别进行分析。

结果

纳入33项研究。与非主动对照组相比,认知刺激在简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)上有显著的正向效应量(Hedges' g)(g = 0.51,95%可信区间0.35至0.66;p < 0.001),与主动对照组相比(g = 0.35,95%可信区间0.06至0.64;p = 0.019)。在阿尔茨海默病评估量表 - 认知部分(ADAS - Cog)也观察到显著益处(g = -0.26,95%可信区间 -0.445至 -0.08;p = 0.005)。没有证据表明认知训练或混合认知训练与刺激对总体认知结果有显著改善,且认知康复研究数量不足无法进行荟萃分析。在17项认知刺激研究中有11项达到了MMSE可接受的最低最小临床重要差异,但在ADAS - Cog的9项研究中只有2项达到。此外,95%预测区间表明,尽管在统计学上有显著意义,但认知刺激在所有临床环境中可能不会对ADAS - Cog产生益处。

结论

认知刺激可提高痴呆症患者MMSE和ADAS - Cog的分数,但对ADAS - Cog的益处通常在临床上不显著,并且患者盲法和使用适当安慰剂对照存在困难,使得与痴呆症药物治疗结果的比较存在问题。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d073/4390716/2d9d7bc1f050/bmjopen2014005247f01.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验