Expanded review criteria: The case of nonpharmacological interventions in Dementia

Jiska Cohen-Mansfield, Kathleen Buckwalter, Elizabeth Beattie, Karen Rose, Christine Neville, Ann Kolanowski

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper challenges the assumptions underlying many reviews and offers alternative criteria for examining evidence for nonpharmacological interventions. We evaluated 27 reviews examining interventions for persons with dementia as they relate to the issues of selection based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Reviews were described by type of intervention, level of cognitive function, and criteria for inclusion. Of the 27 reviews, 46% required RCTs for inclusion and most had stringent inclusion criteria. This resulted in poor utilization of the literature and low ecological validity. Eliminating most of the available data poses a critical problem to clinical and research development. Studies meeting strict methodological criteria may not generalize to the greater population or may exclude sub-populations and interventions. Limitations of double-blind RCTs and potential design solutions are set forth based on appropriate populations, problems, interventions, and settings characteristics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)15-28
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Alzheimer's Disease
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Dementia
Population
Cognition
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska ; Buckwalter, Kathleen ; Beattie, Elizabeth ; Rose, Karen ; Neville, Christine ; Kolanowski, Ann. / Expanded review criteria : The case of nonpharmacological interventions in Dementia. In: Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2014 ; Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. 15-28.
@article{276b3ac851b3402e9140d01abbcc95cb,
title = "Expanded review criteria: The case of nonpharmacological interventions in Dementia",
abstract = "This paper challenges the assumptions underlying many reviews and offers alternative criteria for examining evidence for nonpharmacological interventions. We evaluated 27 reviews examining interventions for persons with dementia as they relate to the issues of selection based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Reviews were described by type of intervention, level of cognitive function, and criteria for inclusion. Of the 27 reviews, 46{\%} required RCTs for inclusion and most had stringent inclusion criteria. This resulted in poor utilization of the literature and low ecological validity. Eliminating most of the available data poses a critical problem to clinical and research development. Studies meeting strict methodological criteria may not generalize to the greater population or may exclude sub-populations and interventions. Limitations of double-blind RCTs and potential design solutions are set forth based on appropriate populations, problems, interventions, and settings characteristics.",
author = "Jiska Cohen-Mansfield and Kathleen Buckwalter and Elizabeth Beattie and Karen Rose and Christine Neville and Ann Kolanowski",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3233/JAD-132357",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "15--28",
journal = "Journal of Alzheimer's Disease",
issn = "1387-2877",
publisher = "IOS Press",
number = "1",

}

Expanded review criteria : The case of nonpharmacological interventions in Dementia. / Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska; Buckwalter, Kathleen; Beattie, Elizabeth; Rose, Karen; Neville, Christine; Kolanowski, Ann.

In: Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 15-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expanded review criteria

T2 - The case of nonpharmacological interventions in Dementia

AU - Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska

AU - Buckwalter, Kathleen

AU - Beattie, Elizabeth

AU - Rose, Karen

AU - Neville, Christine

AU - Kolanowski, Ann

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - This paper challenges the assumptions underlying many reviews and offers alternative criteria for examining evidence for nonpharmacological interventions. We evaluated 27 reviews examining interventions for persons with dementia as they relate to the issues of selection based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Reviews were described by type of intervention, level of cognitive function, and criteria for inclusion. Of the 27 reviews, 46% required RCTs for inclusion and most had stringent inclusion criteria. This resulted in poor utilization of the literature and low ecological validity. Eliminating most of the available data poses a critical problem to clinical and research development. Studies meeting strict methodological criteria may not generalize to the greater population or may exclude sub-populations and interventions. Limitations of double-blind RCTs and potential design solutions are set forth based on appropriate populations, problems, interventions, and settings characteristics.

AB - This paper challenges the assumptions underlying many reviews and offers alternative criteria for examining evidence for nonpharmacological interventions. We evaluated 27 reviews examining interventions for persons with dementia as they relate to the issues of selection based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Reviews were described by type of intervention, level of cognitive function, and criteria for inclusion. Of the 27 reviews, 46% required RCTs for inclusion and most had stringent inclusion criteria. This resulted in poor utilization of the literature and low ecological validity. Eliminating most of the available data poses a critical problem to clinical and research development. Studies meeting strict methodological criteria may not generalize to the greater population or may exclude sub-populations and interventions. Limitations of double-blind RCTs and potential design solutions are set forth based on appropriate populations, problems, interventions, and settings characteristics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902271483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902271483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3233/JAD-132357

DO - 10.3233/JAD-132357

M3 - Review article

C2 - 24577481

AN - SCOPUS:84902271483

VL - 41

SP - 15

EP - 28

JO - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease

JF - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease

SN - 1387-2877

IS - 1

ER -