Thinking programmes helped thinking in Alzheimer's but did not ease depression
HelpedThe short version
Across 39 studies, thinking improved more in people who did the programmes than in the other groups.

- 39
- studies pooled
- 2,179
- people with Alzheimer's disease
- 1 tool
- tested
The review
Who took part
2,179 people with Alzheimer's took part in 41 trials. Their average ages were about 69 to 88, and in each trial between about 23% and 83% were women.
What they did
Each trial gave a thinking programme: exercises, group activities, or therapy aimed at everyday goals. Some programmes added exercise, and sessions lasted 30 to 120 minutes for 5 to 47 weeks. The other group did something unstructured, waited, or had usual care.
What happened
Thinking got better more than in the other groups across 39 studies, and attention and quality of life got better too. Depression did not change more than in the other groups. The authors ranked programmes that add exercise or other activities highest, but said more trials are needed to compare them.
What the review found
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 39 studies, thinking improved more in people who did the programmes than in the other groups.
Pooled analysis of 39 studies · vs people who did something else, waited or had usual care · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedFocus
Across 6 studies, attention test scores improved more in people who did the programmes than in the other groups.
Pooled analysis of 6 studies · vs people who did something else, waited or had usual care · the authors rated their certainty moderate · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- No differenceOther outcomes
Across 12 studies, depression did not improve more in people who did the programmes than in the other groups.
Pooled analysis of 12 studies · vs people who did something else, waited or had usual care · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 6 studies, quality of life improved more in people who did the programmes than in the other groups.
Pooled analysis of 6 studies · vs people who did something else, waited or had usual care · the authors rated their certainty moderate · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
Source
Comparison of Cognitive Intervention Strategies for Individuals With Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis (2024)
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-023-09584-5 (opens in a new tab)

