Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on exercise interventions for cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.
Zang, Wanli; Zou, Qinghai; Xiao, Ningkun; Fang, Mingqing; Wang, Su; Chen, Jingjing.
Afiliación
  • Zang W; Harbin Sport University, Harbin, China.
  • Zou Q; Physical Education Department, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China.
  • Xiao N; Department of Psychology, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia.
  • Fang M; Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
  • Wang S; Harbin Sport University, Harbin, China.
  • Chen J; School of Basic Medicine, Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Jilin, China.
PeerJ ; 12: e17773, 2024.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39071117
ABSTRACT

Objective:

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.

Methods:

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.

Results:

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.

Conclusion:

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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Metaanálisis como Asunto / Terapia por Ejercicio / Disfunción Cognitiva / Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto Límite: Aged / Humans Idioma: En Revista: PeerJ Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Metaanálisis como Asunto / Terapia por Ejercicio / Disfunción Cognitiva / Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto Límite: Aged / Humans Idioma: En Revista: PeerJ Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos