Summary of findings 2. Reminiscence therapy compared to no treatment for people living with dementia (modality).

Reminiscence therapy compared to no treatment for people living with dementia (modality)
Patient or population: people living with dementia (modality) Setting: care home and community settings Intervention: reminiscence therapy Comparison: no treatment
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with no treatment	Risk with reminiscence therapy
Individual: quality of life (self‐reported) at end of treatment assessed with: QoL‐AD Scale from: 13 to 52 follow‐up: range 1 to 7 days	‐	MD 7.00 points higher (0.14 lower to 14.14 higher)	‐	23 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low1	Higher score on quality of life measures indicated a more positive outcome. 3.0 points may be the minimum clinically important difference.
Individual: cognition at end of treatment assessed with: MMSE, AMI‐PSS follow‐up: range 1 day to 2 weeks	‐	SMD 0.32 higher (0.04 higher to 0.61 higher)	‐	196 (5 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate2	Higher score on cognitive measures indicated a more positive outcome.
Individual: communication at end of treatment assessed with: SES, COS follow‐up: range 1 day to 2 weeks	‐	SMD 0.74 lower (2.38 lower to 0.89 higher)	‐	96 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very low3,4	Lower score on communication measures indicated a more positive outcome.
Group: quality of life (self‐reported) at end of treatment assessed with: QoL‐AD, SR‐QoL follow‐up: range 1 day to 6 weeks	‐	SMD 0.06 higher (0.15 lower to 0.28 higher)	‐	1037 (7 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ High	Higher score on quality of life measures indicated a more positive outcome.
Group: cognition at end of treatment assessed with: MMSE, AMI‐PSS, ADAS‐Cog follow‐up: range 1 day to 6 weeks	‐	SMD 0.07 higher (0.05 lower to 0.20 higher)	‐	1023 (9 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ High	Higher score on cognitive measures indicated a more positive outcome.
Group: communication at end of treatment assessed with: SES, COS, MOSES Withdrawal subscale follow‐up: range 1 day to 1 weeks	‐	SMD 0.39 lower (0.71 lower to 0.06 lower)	‐	153 (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate2	Lower score on communication measures indicated a more positive outcome.
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). ADAS‐Cog: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale; AMI‐PSS: Autobiographical Memory Interview ‐ Perceived Stress Scale; CI: confidence interval; Communication Observation Scale; MD: mean difference; MMSE: Mini‐Mental State Examination; MOSES: Multidimensional Observation Scale for Elderly Subjects; QoL‐AD: Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SES: Social Engagement Scale; SMD: standardised mean difference; SR‐QoL: Self‐Report Quality of Life.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

¹Downgraded 2 levels for imprecision due to small sample size (< 400 participants) and including both null effect and an upper limit greater than 0.3.

²Downgraded 1 level for imprecision due to small sample size (< 400 participants).

³Downgraded 2 levels for inconsistency due to considerable unexplained heterogeneity.

⁴Downgraded 2 levels for imprecision due to small sample size (< 400 participants) and both confidence interval limits crossing 0.5.