Cargando…

Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: This review provides a broad overview of the effectiveness of interventions for subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in improving psychological well-being, metacognition and objective cognitive performance. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Systematic Reviews...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bhome, Rohan, Berry, Alex J, Huntley, Jonathan D, Howard, Robert J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6059327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30030318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021610
_version_ 1783341841138057216
author Bhome, Rohan
Berry, Alex J
Huntley, Jonathan D
Howard, Robert J
author_facet Bhome, Rohan
Berry, Alex J
Huntley, Jonathan D
Howard, Robert J
author_sort Bhome, Rohan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This review provides a broad overview of the effectiveness of interventions for subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in improving psychological well-being, metacognition and objective cognitive performance. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Systematic Reviews were searched up to August 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for SCD. Interventions were categorised as psychological, cognitive, lifestyle or pharmacological. Outcomes of interest included psychological well-being, metacognitive ability and objective cognitive performance. To assess the risk of bias, three authors independently rated study validity using criteria based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken where three or more studies investigated similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and 16 had sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Of these, only seven were rated as being high quality. Group psychological interventions significantly improved psychological well-being (g=0.40, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.76; p=0.03) but the improvement they conferred on metacognitive ability was not statistically significant (g=0.26, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.73; p=0.28). Overall, cognitive training interventions led to a small, statistically significant improvement in objective cognitive performance (g=0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.25; p=0.03). However, the pooled effect sizes of studies using active control groups (g=0.02, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.22; p=0.85) or reporting global cognitive measures (g=0.06, 95% CI –0.19 to 0.31; p=0.66) were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality research in this field. Group psychological interventions improve psychological well-being and may also improve metacognition. A large, high-quality study is indicated to investigate this further. There is no evidence to suggest that cognitive interventions improve global cognitive performance and the clinical utility of small improvements in specific cognitive domains is questionable. There is a lack of research considering lifestyle interventions and poor quality evidence for pharmacological interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017079391.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6059327
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60593272018-07-27 Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis Bhome, Rohan Berry, Alex J Huntley, Jonathan D Howard, Robert J BMJ Open Mental Health OBJECTIVES: This review provides a broad overview of the effectiveness of interventions for subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in improving psychological well-being, metacognition and objective cognitive performance. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Systematic Reviews were searched up to August 2017 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for SCD. Interventions were categorised as psychological, cognitive, lifestyle or pharmacological. Outcomes of interest included psychological well-being, metacognitive ability and objective cognitive performance. To assess the risk of bias, three authors independently rated study validity using criteria based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken where three or more studies investigated similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies met inclusion criteria and 16 had sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Of these, only seven were rated as being high quality. Group psychological interventions significantly improved psychological well-being (g=0.40, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.76; p=0.03) but the improvement they conferred on metacognitive ability was not statistically significant (g=0.26, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.73; p=0.28). Overall, cognitive training interventions led to a small, statistically significant improvement in objective cognitive performance (g=0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.25; p=0.03). However, the pooled effect sizes of studies using active control groups (g=0.02, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.22; p=0.85) or reporting global cognitive measures (g=0.06, 95% CI –0.19 to 0.31; p=0.66) were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality research in this field. Group psychological interventions improve psychological well-being and may also improve metacognition. A large, high-quality study is indicated to investigate this further. There is no evidence to suggest that cognitive interventions improve global cognitive performance and the clinical utility of small improvements in specific cognitive domains is questionable. There is a lack of research considering lifestyle interventions and poor quality evidence for pharmacological interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017079391. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6059327/ /pubmed/30030318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021610 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Mental Health
Bhome, Rohan
Berry, Alex J
Huntley, Jonathan D
Howard, Robert J
Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort interventions for subjective cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Mental Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6059327/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30030318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021610
work_keys_str_mv AT bhomerohan interventionsforsubjectivecognitivedeclinesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT berryalexj interventionsforsubjectivecognitivedeclinesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT huntleyjonathand interventionsforsubjectivecognitivedeclinesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT howardrobertj interventionsforsubjectivecognitivedeclinesystematicreviewandmetaanalysis