Search

Background: The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study., Main Results: We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence).  Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background and Aim: The European Association of Palliative Care recommends that family carers need education on the progression of dementia. This systematic review aimed to explore whether interventions incorporating education regarding the progressive nature of dementia increased carers' understanding of dementia and improved mental health and burden., Method: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched to April 2018. Randomised controlled trials with samples of family carers of someone with dementia were eligible. Included interventions involved a component aimed to increase the carer's understanding of the progression of dementia. Outcomes of interest included: knowledge of dementia, depression, burden and pre-death grief., Results: Searches identified 3221 unique citations of which 11 studies were eligible for review. Interventions ranged from 4 to 16 sessions of which 1 to 3 sessions focused on the progression of dementia. Knowledge : Two studies evaluated carers' knowledge of dementia. One found no difference between the trial arms immediately after the intervention or three months later. The second found a significant intervention effect at the end of the intervention but not at three-month follow-up. Depression: Seven studies evaluated intervention effects on depression. Meta-analysis of three trials showed significant differences in mean follow-up scores favouring intervention over control. The remaining four studies did not show differences in depression between intervention and control groups. Burden : Nine studies evaluated burden and were examined in two meta-analyses (mean scores at follow-up and mean change scores from baseline to follow-up), neither of which found a benefit for intervention over control. Using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation system, we judged the quality of evidence to be very low for depression and low for burden, knowledge and pre-death grief, reducing our confidence in any of the effect estimates., Conclusion: The evidence was not sufficient to support or refute the effectiveness of education on progression of dementia on carers' knowledge and mental health.

Objectives: Globally, the number of people with dementia who have palliative care needs will increase fourfold over the next 40 years. The Empowering Better End-of-Life Dementia Care (EMBED-Care) Programme aims to deliver a step change in care through a large sequential study, spanning multiple work streams., Methods: We will use mixed methods across settings where people with dementia live and die: their own homes, care homes, and hospitals. Beginning with policy syntheses and reviews of interventions, we will develop a conceptual framework and underpinning theory of change. We will use linked data sets to explore current service use, care transitions, and inequalities and predict future need for end-of-life dementia care. Longitudinal cohort studies of people with dementia (including young onset and prion dementias) and their carers will describe care transitions, quality of life, symptoms, formal and informal care provision, and costs. Data will be synthesised, underpinned by the Knowledge-to-Action Implementation Framework, to design a novel complex intervention to support assessment, decision making, and communication between patients, carers, and inter-professional teams. This will be feasibility and pilot tested in UK settings. Patient and public involvement and engagement, innovative work with artists, policymakers, and third sector organisations are embedded to drive impact. We will build research capacity and develop an international network for excellence in dementia palliative care., Conclusions: EMBED-Care will help us understand current and future need, develop novel cost-effective care innovations, build research capacity, and promote international collaborations in research and practice to ensure people live and die well with dementia., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: People with dementia are at greater risk of being admitted to hospital where care may not be tailored to their needs. Interventions improving care and management are vital., Aim: Assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve the care and management of people with dementia in hospital., Method: Six medical and trial registry, and grey literature databases were searched (1999-1998/2018). Search terms included "Dementia," "Hospital," and "Intervention" and limited to experimental designs. Interventions designed to improve the care and management of people with dementia in the general hospital setting were examined. Outcomes included behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), psychosocial, clinical, staff knowledge, and length of hospital stay. The CASP tools, Cochrane risk of bias tool, and GRADE system assessed methodological quality and certainty of evidence., Results: 9003 unique citations were identified; 24 studies were included. Studies were limited in study design and their conduct was at a risk of bias. There is very low-quality evidence that multisensory behaviour therapy reduces BPSD. There is low-quality evidence that a multidisciplinary programme reduces postoperative complications and that robot-assisted therapy, music therapy, multimodal-comprehensive care, person-centred care, and family-centred function-focused care interventions improved staff knowledge, competence, efficacy, and communication. No studies reported reduced length of stay., Conclusions: Whilst we found that these interventions improved the care and management of people with dementia in hospital, it was low- to very low-quality evidence. New clinical recommendations cannot be made based on current evidence, and robust trial designs are necessary to inform evidence-based care., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Nearly half of care home residents with advanced dementia have clinically significant agitation. Little is known about costs associated with these symptoms toward the end of life. We calculated monetary costs associated with agitation from UK National Health Service, personal social services, and societal perspectives., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Thirteen nursing homes in London and the southeast of England., Participants: Seventy-nine people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Tool grade 6e and above) residing in nursing homes, and thirty-five of their informal carers., Measurements: Data collected at study entry and monthly for up to 9 months, extrapolated for expression per annum. Agitation was assessed using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Health and social care costs of residing in care homes, and costs of contacts with health and social care services were calculated from national unit costs; for a societal perspective, costs of providing informal care were estimated using the resource utilization in dementia (RUD)-Lite scale., Results: After adjustment, health and social care costs, and costs of providing informal care varied significantly by level of agitation as death approached, from £23,000 over a 1-year period with no agitation symptoms (CMAI agitation score 0-10) to £45,000 at the most severe level (CMAI agitation score >100). On average, agitation accounted for 30% of health and social care costs. Informal care costs were substantial, constituting 29% of total costs., Conclusions: With the increasing prevalence of dementia, costs of care will impact on healthcare and social services systems, as well as informal carers. Agitation is a key driver of these costs in people with advanced dementia presenting complex challenges for symptom management, service planners, and providers.

Background: Keeping people living with advanced dementia in their usual place of residence is becoming a key governmental goal but to achieve this, family carers and health care professionals must negotiate how to provide optimal care. Previously, we reported a realist analysis of the health care professional perspective. Here, we report on family carer perspectives. We aimed to understand the similarities and differences between the two perspectives, gain insights into how the interdependent roles of family carers and HCPs can be optimised, and make recommendations for policy and practice., Method: Qualitative study using a realist approach in which we used the criteria from guidance on optimal palliative care in advanced dementia to examine key contexts, mechanisms and outcomes highlighted by family carers., Results: The themes and views of family caregivers resonate with those of health care professionals. Their overlapping anxieties related to business-driven care homes, uncertainty of families when making EOL decisions and the importance of symptom management referring to contexts, mechanisms and outcomes, respectively. Contexts specific to family carers were ad hoc information about services, dementia progression and access to funding. Not all family carers identified dementia as terminal, but many recognised the importance of continuity of care and knowing the wishes of the person with dementia. New mechanisms included specific resources for improving EOL care and barriers to discussing and planning for future care. Family carers identified the importance of comfort, being present, the meeting of basic care needs and feeling the right decisions have been made as good outcomes of care., Conclusions: Family carers and health care professionals share similar concerns about the challenges to good EOL dementia care. Better understanding of the effects of dementia at the advanced stages would improve confidence in EOL care and reduce uncertainty in decision making for family carers and health care professionals.

Background: Increasing number of people are dying with advanced dementia. Comfort and quality of life are key goals of care., Aims: To describe (1) physical and psychological symptoms, (2) health and social care service utilisation and (3) care at end of life in people with advanced dementia., Design: 9-month prospective cohort study., Setting and Participants: Greater London, England, people with advanced dementia (Functional Assessment Staging Scale 6e and above) from 14 nursing homes or their own homes., Main Outcome Measures: At study entry and monthly: prescriptions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pressure sore risk/severity (Waterlow Scale/Stirling Scale, respectively), acute medical events, pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), quality of life (Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale), resource use (Resource Utilization in Dementia Questionnaire and Client Services Receipt Inventory), presence/type of advance care plans, interventions, mortality, place of death and comfort (Symptom Management at End of Life in Dementia Scale)., Results: Of 159 potential participants, 85 were recruited (62% alive at end of follow-up). Pain (11% at rest, 61% on movement) and significant agitation (54%) were common and persistent. Aspiration, dyspnoea, septicaemia and pneumonia were more frequent in those who died. In total, 76% had 'do not resuscitate' statements, less than 40% advance care plans. Most received primary care visits, there was little input from geriatrics or mental health but contact with emergency paramedics was common., Conclusion: People with advanced dementia lived with distressing symptoms. Service provision was not tailored to their needs. Longitudinal multidisciplinary input could optimise symptom control and quality of life.

Background: Many people with dementia die in nursing homes, but quality of care may be suboptimal. We developed the theory-driven 'Compassion Intervention' to enhance end-of-life care in advanced dementia., Objectives: To (1) understand how the Intervention operated in nursing homes in different health economies; (2) collect preliminary outcome data and costs of an interdisciplinary care leader (ICL) to facilitate the Intervention; (3) check the Intervention caused no harm., Design: A naturalistic feasibility study of Intervention implementation for 6 months., Settings: Two nursing homes in northern London, UK., Participants: Thirty residents with advanced dementia were assessed of whom nine were recruited for data collection; four of these residents' family members were interviewed. Twenty-eight nursing home and external healthcare professionals participated in interviews at 7 (n=19), 11 (n=19) and 15 months (n=10)., Intervention: An ICL led two core Intervention components: (1) integrated, interdisciplinary assessment and care; (2) education and support for paid and family carers., Data Collected: Process and outcome data were collected. Symptoms were recorded monthly for recruited residents. Semistructured interviews were conducted at 7, 11 and 15 months with nursing home staff and external healthcare professionals and at 7 months with family carers. ICL hours were costed using Department of Health and Health Education England tariffs., Results: Contextual differences were identified between sites: nursing home 2 had lower involvement with external healthcare services. Core components were implemented at both sites but multidisciplinary meetings were only established in nursing home 1. The Intervention prompted improvements in advance care planning, pain management and person-centred care; we observed no harm. Six-month ICL costs were £18 255., Conclusions: Implementation was feasible to differing degrees across sites, dependent on context. Our data inform future testing to identify the Intervention's effectiveness in improving end-of-life care in advanced dementia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02840318: Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors had no competing interests, (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Context: Increasing numbers of people will die from chronic disease. Families contribute significantly to end-of-life care, but their role may not be recognized., Objectives: To 1) establish the proportion of older cohabitees identified in primary care as "carers"; 2) describe demographic and lifestyle characteristics of cohabitees of people terminally ill with cancer, dementia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); 3) describe their health a year before and after bereavement; and 4) compare health outcomes between cohabitees of people dying with cancer, COPD, or dementia., Methods: Retrospective cohort study using a U.K. primary care database (The Health Improvement Network) of 13,693 bereaved cohabitees (a proxy marker for being a carer), aged 60 years or older of people dying from cancer, COPD, or dementia. Characteristics were described one year before and after bereavement. We compared cancer, COPD, and dementia cohabitee outcomes using incidence rate ratios one year before and after bereavement and calculated mortality risk after bereavement., Results: A total of 6.9% of cohabitees were recorded as carers. Health outcomes differed little between the three groups of cohabitees in the year before or after bereavement. The proportion of cohabitees with six or more consultations increased the year after bereavement (cancer cohabitees 16.0% to 18.8%, COPD cohabitees 17.8% to 20.4%, and dementia cohabitees 15.5% to 17.5%). At postbereavement (follow-up median 3 years, interquartile range 1.3-5.4), we found no mortality differences between the three groups., Conclusion: Recording of carers of terminally ill people was suboptimal. Cause of bereavement produced few differential effects on health outcomes or mortality., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prevalence of dementia is rising worldwide and many people will die with the disease. Symptoms towards the end of life may be inadequately managed and informal and professional carers poorly supported. There are few evidence-based interventions to improve end-of-life care in advanced dementia., Aim: To develop an integrated, whole systems, evidence-based intervention that is pragmatic and feasible to improve end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia and support those close to them., Design: A realist-based approach in which qualitative and quantitative data assisted the development of statements. These were incorporated into the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to achieve consensus on intervention components. Components were mapped to underlying theory of whole systems change and the intervention described in a detailed manual., Setting/participants: Data were collected from people with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals in England, from expert opinion and existing literature. Professional stakeholders in all four countries of the United Kingdom contributed to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method process., Results: A total of 29 statements were agreed and mapped to individual, group, organisational and economic/political levels of healthcare systems. The resulting main intervention components are as follows: (1) influencing local service organisation through facilitation of integrated multi-disciplinary care, (2) providing training and support for formal and informal carers and (3) influencing local healthcare commissioning and priorities of service providers., Conclusion: Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: Globally, the number of people who die with dementia is increasing. The importance of a palliative approach in the care of people with dementia is recognised and there are national polices to enhance current care. In the UK implementation of these polices is promoted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Dementia Quality Standards (QS). Since publication of the QS new care interventions have been developed., Aim: To explore critically the current international research evidence on effect available to inform NICE Dementia QS relevant to end of life (EOL) care., Design: We used systematic review methods to seek the research evidence for three statements within the Dementia QS. These are those that recommend: (1) a case management approach, (2) discussing and consideration of making a statement about future care (SFC) and (3) a palliative care assessment (PCA). We included evaluative studies of relevant interventions that used a comparative design, such as trials and cohort studies, and measured EOL care outcomes for persons dying with moderate to severe dementia. Our primary outcome of interest was whether the intervention led to a measurable impact on wellbeing for the person with dementia and their family. We assessed included studies for quality using a scale by Higginson and colleagues (2002) for assessment of quality of studies in palliative care, and two authors undertook key review processes. Data sources included Cinahl, Embase, and PsychINFO from 2001 to August 2014. Our search strategy included free text and medical subject headings relevant to population and recommended care., Results: We found seven studies evaluating a care intervention; four assessed SFC, three PCA. None assessed case management. Studies were of weak design; all used retrospective data and relied on others for precise record keeping and for accurate recall of events. There was limited overlap in outcome measurements. Overall reported benefits were mixed., Conclusions: Quality statements relevant to EOL care are useful to advance practice however they have a limited evidence base. High quality empirical work is needed to establish that the recommendations in these statements are best practice.

Background: Agitation is a common experience for people living with dementia, particularly as day-to-day function and cognition start to decline more. At the present time there are limited pharmacological options for relieving agitation and little is known about the safety and efficacy of opioid drugs in this setting., Objectives: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of opioids for agitation in people with dementia., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 13 June 2014 using the terms: narcotic OR opioid OR opium OR morphine OR buprenorphine OR codeine OR dextromoramide OR diphenoxylate OR dipipanone OR dextropropoxyphene OR propoxyphene OR diamorphine OR dihydrocodeine OR alfentanil OR fentanyl OR remifentanil OR meptazinol OR methadone OR nalbuphine OR oxycodone OR papaveretum OR pentazocine OR meperidine OR pethidine OR phenazocine OR hydrocodone OR hydromorphone OR levorphanol OR oxymorphone OR butorphanol OR dezocine OR sufentanil OR ketobemidone.ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and PscyINFO, as well as numerous trial registries and grey literature sources., Selection Criteria: Randomised, controlled trials of opioids compared to placebo for agitation in people with dementia., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search against the inclusion criteria., Main Results: There are currently no completed randomised, placebo controlled trials of opioids for agitation in dementia. There are two potentially relevant trials still in progress., Authors' Conclusions: We found insufficient evidence to establish the clinical efficacy and safety of opioids for agitation in people with dementia. There remains a lack of data to determine if or when opioids either relieve or exacerbate agitation. More evidence is needed to guide the effective, appropriate and safe use of opioids in dementia.

Introduction: In the UK approximately 700,000 people are living with, and a third of people aged over 65 will die with, dementia. People with dementia may receive poor quality care towards the end of life. We applied a realist approach and used mixed methods to develop a complex intervention to improve care for people with advanced dementia and their family carers. Consensus on intervention content was achieved using the RAND UCLA appropriateness method and mapped to sociological theories of process and impact. Core components are: (1) facilitation of integrated care, (2) education, training and support, (3) investment from commissioners and care providers. We present the protocol for an exploratory phase I study to implement components 1 and 2 in order to understand how the intervention operates in practice and to assess feasibility and acceptability., Methods and Analysis: An 'Interdisciplinary Care Leader (ICL)' will work within two care homes, alongside staff and associated professionals to facilitate service integration, encourage structured needs assessment, develop the use of personal and advance care plans and support staff training. We will use qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data for a range of outcome and process measures to detect effects on individual residents, family carers, care home staff, the intervention team, the interdisciplinary team and wider systems. Analysis will include descriptive statistics summarising process and care home level data, individual demographic and clinical characteristics and data on symptom burden, clinical events and quality of care. Qualitative data will be explored using thematic analysis. Findings will inform a future phase II trial., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted (REC reference 14/LO/0370). We shall publish findings at conferences, in peer-reviewed journals, on the Marie Curie Cancer Care website and prepare reports for dissemination by organisations involved with end-of-life care and dementia., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Aim: Enteral tube feeding for people with advanced dementia who have difficulty swallowing and poor nutritional intake is common. Potential benefits or harms of this practice are unclear and the authors aimed to evaluate the outcomes of this intervention., Methods: A full literature review was undertaken in April 2008. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies and controlled observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of enteral feeding via a nasogastric tube or via a tube passed by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy were selected. The study population comprised adults aged 50 and over with a diagnosis of advanced primary degenerative dementia who had poor nutritional intake and/or developed problems with eating and swallowing. The primary outcomes were survival and quality of life (QOL)., Results: No RCTs were identified. Seven observational controlled studies were found; six assessed mortality. There was no evidence of increased survival in people with dementia receiving enteral tube feeding. The other study assessed nutritional outcomes. None of the studies examined the effect on QOL and there was no evidence of benefit in terms of nutritional status or the prevalence of pressure ulcers., Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that enteral tube feeding is beneficial in people with advanced dementia. Data is lacking on the adverse effects of this intervention.

Background: The use of enteral tube feeding for patients with advanced dementia who have poor nutritional intake is common. In one US survey 34% of 186,835 nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment were tube fed. Potential benefits or harms of this practice are unclear., Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of enteral tube nutrition for older people with advanced dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing and/or have poor nutritional intake., Search Strategy: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched in April 2008. Citation checking was undertaken. Where it was not possible to accept or reject, the full text of the citation was obtained for further evaluation., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of enteral feeding via a nasogastric tube or via a tube passed by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) were planned to be included. In addition, controlled observational studies were included. The study population comprised adults aged 50 and over (either sex), with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia made according to validated diagnostic criteria such as DSM-IV or ICD-10 (APA 1994; WHO 1993) and with advanced cognitive impairment defined by a recognised and validated tool or by clinical assessment and had poor nutrition intake and/or develop problems with eating and swallowing. Where data were limited we also considered studies in which the majority of participants had dementia., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were independently extracted and assessed by one reviewer, checked by a second and if necessary, in the case of any disagreement or discrepancy it was planned that it would be reviewed by the third reviewer. Where information was lacking, we attempted contact with authors. It was planned that meta-analysis would be considered for RCTs with comparable key characteristics. The primary outcomes were survival and quality of life (QoL)., Main Results: No RCTs were identified. Seven observational controlled studies were identified. Six assessed mortality. The other study assessed nutritional outcomes. There was no evidence of increased survival in patients receiving enteral tube feeding. None of the studies examined QoL and there was no evidence of benefit in terms of nutritional status or the prevalence of pressure ulcers., Authors' Conclusions: Despite the very large number of patients receiving this intervention, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that enteral tube feeding is beneficial in patients with advanced dementia. Data are lacking on the adverse effects of this intervention.