BackgroundFrom the perspective of disease prevention, the enhancement of cognitive function among the healthy older people has become an important issue in many countries lately. This study aim to investigate the effect of cognitive-based training on the overall cognitive function, memory, attention, executive function, and visual-spatial ability of the healthy older people.MethodsCochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL of selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and previous systematic reviews were searched for eligible studies. The population focused on this study were healthy older people who participated in randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of cognitive-based training. The outcomes including change in overall cognitive function, memory, attention, executive function, and visual-spatial ability.ResultsWe collected a total of 31 RCTs, the results showed that cognitive-based training has a moderate effect on overall cognitive function (g = 0.419; 95%CI = 0.205–0.634) and executive function (g = 0.420; 95%CI = 0.239–0.602), and a small effect on the memory (g = 0.354; 95%CI = 0.244–0.465), attention (g = 0.218; 95%CI = 0.125–0.311), and visual-spatial ability (g = 0.183;95%CI = 0.015–0.352) in healthy older people. Subgroup analysis indicated the intervention characteristics of ≧3 times each week (p = 0.042), ≧8 total training weeks (p = 0.003) and ≧24 total training sessions (p = 0.040) yields a greater effect size.ConclusionsCognitive-based training is effective for the healthy older people. This improvement can represent a clinically important benefit, provide information about the use of cognitive-based training in healthy older people, and help the healthy older people obtain the greatest possible benefit in health promotion and disease prevention.
BackgroundAlthough cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is considered a promising adjuvant to pharmacotherapy for treating bipolar disorder (BD), its efficacy is unproven. The present review and meta-analysis evaluated the treatment outcomes of patients with BD treated with CBT plus medication and compared these data with the outcomes of those who received standard care alone.MethodsElectronic searches from inception to July 31, 2016, were performed using PubMed, Medline OVID, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL plus, and PsycINFO. In the extensive electronic literature search, keywords such as “bipolar disorder,” “manic-depressive psychosis,” “bipolar affective disorder,” “bipolar depression,” “cognitive therapy,” “cognitive-behavioral therapy,” and “psychotherapy” were transformed into MeSH terms, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of relapse rates and Hedges’s g, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for the mean differences in the levels of depression, mania, and psychosocial functioning were calculated. Further subgroup analyses were conducted according to the characteristics of the CBT approaches, patients, and therapists, if the data were available.ResultA total of 19 RCTs comprising 1384 patients with type I or II BD were enrolled in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The main analysis revealed that CBT could lower the relapse rate (pooled OR = 0.506; 95% CI = 0.278 −0.921) and improve depressive symptoms (g = −0.494; 95% CI = −0.963 to −0.026), mania severity (g = −0.581; 95% CI = −1.127 to −0.035), and psychosocial functioning (g = 0.457; 95% CI = 0.106–0.809).ConclusionsCBT is effective in decreasing the relapse rate and improving depressive symptoms, mania severity, and psychosocial functioning, with a mild-to-moderate effect size. Subgroup analyses indicated that improvements in depression or mania are more potent with a CBT treatment duration of ≥90 min per session, and the relapse rate is much lower among patients with type I BD.
Background Post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) has been associated with high risk of aspiration pneumonia and mortality. However, limited evidence on pooled prevalence of post-stroke dysphagia and influence of individual, disease and methodological factors reveals knowledge gap. Therefore, to extend previous evidence from systematic reviews, we performed the first meta-analysis to examine the pooled prevalence, risk of pneumonia and mortality and influence of prognostic factors for PSD in acute stroke. Methods Our search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid-Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science an initial search in October 2020 and a follow-up search in May 2021. Data synthesis was conducted using the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation model for the pooled prevalence rate and the DerSimonian-Lard random-effects model for prognostic factors and outcomes of PSD. Results The pooled prevalence of PSD was 42% in 42 studies with 26,366 participants. PSD was associated with higher pooled odds ratio (OR) for risk of pneumonia 4.08 (95% CI, 2.13–7.79) and mortality 4.07 (95% CI, 2.17–7.63). Haemorrhagic stroke 1.52 (95% CI, 1.13–2.07), previous stroke 1.40 (95% CI, 1.18–1.67), severe stroke 1.38 (95% CI, 1.17–1.61), females 1.25 (95% CI, 1.09–1.43), and diabetes mellitus 1.24 (95% CI, 1.02–1.51) were associated with higher risk of PSD. Males 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70–0.95) and ischaemic stroke 0.54 (95% CI, 0.46–0.65) were associated with lower risk of PSD. Haemorrhagic stroke, use of instrumental assessment method, and high quality studies demonstrated to have higher prevalence of PSD in the moderator analysis. Conclusions Assessment of PSD in acute stroke with standardized valid and reliable instruments should take into account stroke type, previous stroke, severe stroke, diabetes mellitus and gender to aid in prevention and management of pneumonia and thereby, reduce the mortality rate. Trial registration https://osf.io/58bjk/?view_only=26c7c8df8b55418d9a414f6d6df68bdb.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.