No abstract

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084077.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a highly prevalent condition worldwide. Its chronic and progressive presentation has an impact on physical and psychosocial characteristics and on public healthcare. Our aim was to summarize evidence from Cochrane reviews on non-pharmacological treatments for cognitive disorders and dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS: Cochrane reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive dysfunctions and/or type of dementia were included. For this, independent assessments were made by two authors. RESULTS: Twenty-four reviews were included. These showed that carbohydrate intake and validation therapy may be beneficial for cognitive disorders. For dementia, there is a potential benefit from physical activity programs, cognitive training, psychological treatments, aromatherapy, light therapy, cognitive rehabilitation, cognitive stimulation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy in association with donepezil, functional analysis, reminiscence therapy, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, structured decision-making on feeding options, case management approaches, interventions by non-specialist healthcare workers and specialized care units. No benefits were found in relation to enteral tube feeding, acupuncture, Snoezelen stimulation, respite care, palliative care team and interventions to prevent wandering behavior. CONCLUSION: Many non-pharmacological interventions for patients with cognitive impairment and dementia have been studied and potential benefits have been shown. However, the strength of evidence derived from these studies was considered low overall, due to the methodological limitations of the primary studies. RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO:Demência é uma condição com alta prevalência e incidência global. Sua característica crônica e progressiva tem impacto em aspectos físicos, psicossociais e na saúde pública. Nosso objetivo foi resumir evidências de revisões Cochrane sobre intervenções não farmacológicas para distúrbios cognitivos e demências. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Revisão de revisões sistemáticas conduzida na Disciplina de Medicina Baseada em Evidências da Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídas revisões Cochrane sobre intervenções não farmacológicas para disfunções cognitivas e/ou qualquer tipo de demência, após a avaliação realizada de forma independente por dois autores. RESULTADOS: Vinte e quatro revisões foram incluídas. As revisões mostraram que ingestão de carboidratos e a terapia de validação podem ser benéficas para distúrbios cognitivos. Para demência, existe benefício potencial de programas de atividade física, treino cognitivo, tratamentos psicológicos, aromaterapia, terapia com luz, reabilitação cognitiva, estimulação cognitiva, oxigenoterapia hiperbárica associada a donepezila, análise funcional, terapia de reminiscência, estimulação elétrica transcutânea, decisão estruturada em op...

No abstract

Cochrane devolves most editorial governance of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), including title prioritization, protocol registration, peer‐review, editorial oversight and subsequent review deposition, to specific Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial boards. Current Cochrane policy stipulates authors of reviews who are also members of the supporting CRG declare this non‐financial conflict of interest and confirm no involvement in the review editorial process. The aim of this cross‐sectional analysis was to assess adherence to Cochrane's editorial conflict of interest policy. All 260 published Cochrane reviews (CR) in issues 1 to 6 from 2019 of the CDSR were reviewed. A total of 133 (51.2%, 133/260) of CRs had at least one author that was also listed as an editor in the CRG. Of these, only five (3.8%, 5/133) appropriately declared the conflict according to Cochrane policy. In 6.5% (17/133) CRs, the contact author had a leading editorial position within the CRG and in only four of 17 was this declared according to Cochrane policy. No CR with the contact author who also had a leading editorial position described methods to prevent any potential issues related to this scenario during the editorial process in accordance with Cochrane policy. We propose a specific form to improve the transparency and reliability of editorial conflict of interest reporting in CRs. The suggested form can be adapted to other contexts.

No abstract

No abstract