Search

Objective: To determine the effects of simultaneous dual-task training on cognitive function, physical function, and depression in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia., Methods: Comprehensive database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ovid-Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus up to December 2022. Randomized controlled trials were included to assess the efficacy of simultaneous dual-task training for older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. The analysis utilized Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3.0, presenting Hedges' g and the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the pooled effect size and, applying a random-effects model. The I 2 and Cochran's Q tests were employed to evaluate heterogeneity. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was employed to assess study quality. The Copenhagen Trial Unit (version 0.9.5.10 Beta) was employed for trial sequential analysis, providing a rigorous methodology for evaluating cumulative evidence from multiple studies., Results: Of the 1676 studies identified, 20 studies involving 1477 older adults with cognitive impairment were included. Dual-task training significantly enhanced global cognition (0.477, 95 % CI: 0.282 to 0.671), executive function (-0.310, 95 % CI: -0.586 to -0.035), working memory (0.714, 95 % CI: 0.072 to 1.355), gait (0.418, 95 % CI: 0.252 to 0.583), physical activity (0.586, 95 % CI: 0.012 to 1.16), and depression (-0.703, 95 % CI: -1.253 to -0.153). Trial sequential analyses revealed the robustness of this meta-analysis, which was based on a sufficient sample size from the included studies. Moreover, dual-task training demonstrated beneficial effects on global cognition, executive function, working memory, and gait., Conclusions: Dual-task training improved cognition, physical function, and depression among older adults with cognitive impairment. Accordingly, dual-task training should be considered a clinical nonpharmacological intervention for older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Nevertheless, the trial sequential analysis results were consistent with those of the pairwise meta-analysis but only global cognition reached significance by crossing the trial sequential analysis boundary. Future studies with higher-quality designs and larger sample sizes are required to obtain more conclusive results regarding other outcomes., Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023418598., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aging and dementia are common and closely related health problems in older adults, affecting their ability to maintain a healthy diet and ultimately resulting in malnutrition., Objective: In this study, we estimated the global prevalence of malnutrition and malnutrition risk in older adults with dementia., Design: Meta-analysis., Data Sources: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched for articles published from database inception to October 2022., Methods: Pooled prevalence analysis was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model and a random-effects model. I 2 and Cochran's Q statistics were used for identifying heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using Peters' regression test and a funnel plot. Moderator analyses were conducted to investigate variations in the prevalence estimates of the included studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R software., Results: A total of 16 studies involving a total of 6513 older adults with dementia were included in the analysis. The results indicated that 32.52 % (95 % confidence interval: 19.55-45.49) of all included older adults with dementia had malnutrition, whereas 46.80 % (95 % confidence interval: 38.90-54.70) had a risk of malnutrition. The prevalence of malnutrition was found to be high among older patients living in institutionalized settings (46.59 %) and those with Alzheimer's disease (12.26 %). The factors moderating the prevalence of malnutrition included adequate vitamin B 12 consumption, risk behaviors, medical comorbidities, and certain neuropsychiatric symptoms. The prevalence of malnutrition risk was high among women (29.84 %) and patients with Alzheimer's disease (26.29 %). The factors moderating the prevalence of malnutrition risk included total cholesterol level, vitamin B 12 consumption, risk behaviors, medical comorbidities, and certain neuropsychiatric symptoms., Conclusions: Approximately one-third of older adults with dementia are malnourished and nearly half of older adults are at a risk of malnutrition. Encouraging collaboration among health-care professionals and ensuring early assessment and effective management of malnutrition are crucial for maintaining a favorable nutritional status in older adults with dementia., Registration: This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022369329)., Tweetable Abstract: Globally, approximately 32.52 % of older adults with dementia are malnourished and approximately 46.80 % are at a risk of malnutrition., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prolonged or complicated grief disorder occurs in 9.8% of bereaved adults and can progress into adverse health effects if left unresolved. Evidence on the appropriate and specific diagnostic instrument for the assessment of prolonged or complicated grief disorders is lacking., Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the most widely used instruments to diagnose grief disorders, including The Inventory of Complicated Grief, The Inventory of Complicated Grief - Revised, and the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13., Design: Diagnostic meta-analysis., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to July 1, 2020., Methods: We included studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of grief disorders diagnostic tools against the comparator tests in individuals who experienced the loss of a family member. A diagnostic meta-analysis of pooled sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, and area under curve were performed with a random-effect and hierarchical model., Results: In the current study, 3540 participants were involved. The six studies of the Inventory of Complicated Grief had pooled sensitivity of 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 0.97) and specificity of 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 0.98). The positive likelihood ratio was 23.4 (95% confidence interval: 11.2 to 49.0) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.04 to 0.14) with area under curve value at 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.97 to 0.99). For Prolonged Grief Disorder-13, the three included studies' pooled sensitivity was 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 0.60), and the pooled specificity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 0.98). The Inventory of Complicated Grief-Revised evaluation could not be performed as only two articles from the same study were identified in this meta-analysis., Conclusions: The Inventory of Complicated Grief is a highly recommend instrument to differentiate the case of grief disorders. Nurses and health care professionals can use the Inventory of Complicated Grief in the diagnosis of prolonged or complicated grief disorders due to its high sensitivity and specificity values. Further evaluations are needed for the use of Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 and Inventory of Complicated Grief-Revised., Registration: The study is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/bs8n6/?view_only=109e76e59efb4d7699153f62564f57ed). Tweetable abstract: Inventory of Complicated Grief is a highly recommend instrument with high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing grief disorders., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)