Han Kaiyue, Tang Zhiqing, Bai Zirong, Su Wenlong, Zhang Hao
School of Rehabilitation, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, Beijing, China.
Front Aging Neurosci. 2022 Jul 19;14:878025. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.878025. eCollection 2022.
Combined cognitive and physical intervention is commonly used as a non-pharmacological therapy to improve cognitive function in older adults, but it is uncertain whether combined intervention can produce stronger cognitive gains than either single cognitive or sham intervention. To address this uncertainty, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of combined intervention on cognition in older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
We systematically searched eight databases for relevant articles published from inception to November 1, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) were used to compare the effects of the combined intervention with a single cognitive or sham intervention on cognition in older adults with and without MCI aged ≥ 50 years. We also searched Google Scholar, references of the included articles, and relevant reviews. Two independent reviewers performed the article screening, data extraction, and bias assessment. GRADEpro was used to rate the strength of evidence, and RevMan software was used to perform the meta-analysis.
Seventeen studies were included in the analysis, comprising eight studies of cognitively healthy older adults and nine studies of older adults with MCI. The meta-analysis showed that the combined intervention significantly improved most cognitive functions and depression (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI 0.54-1.43, < 0.0001) in older adults compared to the control groups, but the intervention effects varied by cognition domains. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the maintenance between the combined and sham interventions (SMD = 1.34, 95% CI -0.58-3.27, = 0.17). The subgroup analysis also showed that there was no statistical difference in the combined intervention to improve global cognition, memory, attention, and executive function between cognitive healthy older adults and older adults with MCI.
Combined intervention improves cognitive functions in older adults with and without MCI, especially in global cognition, memory, and executive function. However, there was no statistical difference in the efficacy of the combined intervention to improve cognition between cognitive healthy older adults and older adults with MCI. Moreover, the maintenance of the combined intervention remains unclear due to the limited follow-up data and high heterogeneity. In the future, more stringent study designs with more follow-ups are needed further to explore the effects of combined intervention in older adults.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD42021292490.
认知与身体联合干预通常作为一种非药物疗法用于改善老年人的认知功能,但联合干预是否能比单一认知干预或假干预产生更强的认知改善效果尚不确定。为解决这一不确定性,我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估联合干预对有或无轻度认知障碍(MCI)的老年人认知的影响。
我们系统检索了8个数据库,查找从数据库建立至2021年11月1日发表的相关文章。采用随机对照试验(RCT)和非随机对照试验(NRCT)比较联合干预与单一认知干预或假干预对年龄≥50岁的有或无MCI的老年人认知的影响。我们还检索了谷歌学术、纳入文章的参考文献及相关综述。两名独立 reviewers 进行文章筛选、数据提取和偏倚评估。使用GRADEpro对证据强度进行评级,使用RevMan软件进行荟萃分析。
17项研究纳入分析,其中8项研究对象为认知健康的老年人,9项研究对象为患有MCI的老年人。荟萃分析表明,与对照组相比,联合干预显著改善了老年人的大多数认知功能和抑郁(标准化均数差[SMD]=0.99,95%可信区间[CI]0.54 - 1.43,P<0.0001),但干预效果因认知领域而异。然而,联合干预与假干预在维持效果方面无统计学显著差异(SMD = 1.34,95% CI -0.58 - 3.27,P = 0.17)。亚组分析还表明,在改善整体认知、记忆、注意力和执行功能方面,联合干预在认知健康的老年人与患有MCI的老年人之间无统计学差异。
联合干预可改善有或无MCI的老年人的认知功能,尤其是在整体认知、记忆和执行功能方面。然而,联合干预在改善认知方面的疗效在认知健康的老年人与患有MCI的老年人之间无统计学差异。此外,由于随访数据有限且异质性高,联合干预的维持效果仍不明确。未来,需要更严格的研究设计和更多随访进一步探索联合干预对老年人的影响。
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails,标识符:CRD42021292490。