Harbin Sport University, Harbin, China.
Physical Education Department, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China.
PeerJ. 2024 Jul 24;12:e17773. doi: 10.7717/peerj.17773. eCollection 2024.
To assess the methodological quality of meta-analytic literature on exercise interventions for cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the certainty of evidence for its outcome indicators, and to provide clinicians and researchers with more reliable data for making decisions.
Meta-analytic literature related to the effect of exercise intervention on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment was searched through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Web of Science, all with a search period frame of each database until June 1, 2024. The AMSTAR2 scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies.
Seventeen meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR2 scale evaluation results showed that there was one medium-quality studies (5.55%), seven low-quality studies (38.88%), and 10 very low-quality studies (55.55%). Methodological deficiencies included failure to prepare a plan and provide a registration number, literature screening, data extraction, reasons for exclusion not described in detail, poor implementation process for systematic evaluation, and failure to describe the source of funding for the included studies or relevant conflicts of interest.
The overall methodological quality of the meta-analytic literature is low, and the certainty of evidence is low. We encourage the conduction of high-quality randomized trials to generate stronger evidence. Subsequent systematic reviews can then synthesize this evidence to inform future research and clinical guidelines.
评估针对轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者的运动干预对认知功能影响的荟萃分析文献的方法学质量及其结局指标的证据确定性,为临床医生和研究人员提供更可靠的数据以做出决策。
通过 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Embase、Scopus、Physiotherapy Evidence Database 和 Web of Science 检索与轻度认知障碍患者运动干预对认知功能影响相关的荟萃分析文献,各数据库的检索期限均截至 2024 年 6 月 1 日。采用 AMSTAR2 量表评估纳入研究的方法学质量。
纳入 17 项荟萃分析。AMSTAR2 量表评估结果显示,其中 1 项为中等质量研究(5.55%),7 项为低质量研究(38.88%),10 项为极低质量研究(55.55%)。方法学缺陷包括未制定计划和提供注册编号、文献筛选、数据提取、未详细描述排除原因、系统评价实施过程不佳、未描述纳入研究的资金来源或相关利益冲突等。
荟萃分析文献的总体方法学质量较低,证据确定性较低。我们鼓励开展高质量的随机试验以生成更强有力的证据。随后的系统评价可以综合这些证据,为未来的研究和临床指南提供信息。