Table 3.
Summary of methodological quality and associated risk of bias of all randomized controlled trials.
| Cognitively Healthy Adults | Cognitively Impaired Adults | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lavretsky 2011 |
Taylor- Piliae 2010 |
Mortimer 2012 |
Nguyen 2012 |
Dechamps 2010 |
Tsai 2013 |
Lam 2012 |
Dechamps 2009 |
Burgener 2008 |
Cheng 2012 |
Wang 2010 |
|
| 1. Method of randomization adequate? | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N |
| 2. Treatment allocation concealed? Was the knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study? | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| 3. Was the patient blinded to the intervention? | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 4. Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N |
| 5. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| 6. Was the drop-out rate described and acceptable? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N |
| 7. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which the were allocated? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
| 8. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 9. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Were co-interventions avoided or similar? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y |
| 11. Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | N |
| 12. Was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Serious Flaw Overall Quality Score | 11 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 |