Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hanna Malmberg Gavelin, Christopher Dong, Ruth Minkov, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, Kathryn A Ellis, Nicola T Lautenschlager, Maddison L Mellow, Alexandra T Wade, Ashleigh E Smith, Carsten Finke, Stephan Krohn, View ORCID ProfileAmit Lampit
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.08.20170654
Hanna Malmberg Gavelin
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Dong
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruth Minkov
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex Bahar-Fuchs
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathryn A Ellis
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicola T Lautenschlager
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
5NorthWestern Mental Health, Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maddison L Mellow
6Alliance for Research in Exercise Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexandra T Wade
6Alliance for Research in Exercise Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashleigh E Smith
6Alliance for Research in Exercise Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carsten Finke
7Department of Neurology, Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
8Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephan Krohn
7Department of Neurology, Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
8Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amit Lampit
1Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
7Department of Neurology, Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
8Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Amit Lampit
  • For correspondence: amit.lampit@unimelb.edu.au
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background Large systematic reviews have pointed to the efficacy of cognitive training and physical exercise on cognitive performance in older adults, making them the most common interventions in multidomain dementia prevention trials. However, it remains unclear to which extent combinations of these interventions yield additive effects beyond their individual components and what combination strategies are most beneficial. Our aim therefore was to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials of combined cognitive and physical training on cognitive, physical, psychosocial and functional outcomes in older adults with or without cognitive impairment, and to compare and rank the efficacy of the three main types of combined intervention delivery formats (simultaneous, sequential or exergaming) relative to either intervention alone or control conditions.

Methods and Findings We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO from inception to 23 July 2019. Change from baseline to post-intervention were extracted for each outcome and results were analyzed using random-effects models. The overall efficacy of combined interventions was assessed using multivariate pairwise meta-analysis and the comparative efficacy across different intervention delivery formats and control conditions was investigated using network meta-analysis. A total of 47 trials encompassing 4052 participants were eligible, including cognitively healthy older adults (k=30), mild cognitive impairment (k=13), dementia (k=2) and Parkinson’s disease (k=2). Due to the small number of identified studies in dementia and Parkinson’s disease, these were excluded from the pooled analyses and instead summarized narratively. Relative to any control condition, combined interventions were associated with small and heterogeneous effects on overall cognitive (k=41, Hedges’ g = 0.22, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, prediction interval - 0.34 to 0.78) and physical function (k=32, g = 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.37, prediction interval - 0.46 to 0.96). Cognitive and physical effects were similar for cognitively healthy older adults and those with mild cognitive impairment. No robust evidence for benefit on psychosocial function (k=9) or functional abilities (k=2) was found. The efficacy of simultaneous and sequential training for cognition exceeded all control conditions apart from cognitive training alone, with small to moderate effect estimates and moderate certainty of the evidence. The efficacy of simultaneous and sequential training on physical outcomes was comparable but not significantly greater than physical exercise alone. Exergaming was ranked low for both outcomes and superior only to passive control. The certainty of the evidence was low for physical outcomes, and we were not able to compare interventions in Parkinson’s disease and dementia.

Conclusion Combined cognitive and physical training, delivered either simultaneously or sequentially, is efficacious for cognitive and physical outcomes in cognitively healthy and mildly impaired older adults, but not superior to cognitive or physical exercise alone in each domain. There is little systematic evidence to support potential additive effects of combined interventions or the use of exergaming in older adults. Given simultaneous training is as efficacious but less burdensome than sequential design, the former may be better suited for practical implementation to promote cognitive alongside physical health in late life. More research is needed to establish the effects of combined interventions on everyday function and well-being.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020143509.

INTRODUCTION

As population ageing increases globally, cognitive impairment and dementia have become a leading cause of disability (World Health Organization and Alzehimer’s Disease International, 2012). Modifiable risk factors such as physical and cognitive inactivity, depression, social isolation and poor cardiovascular health have been estimated to account for about 35% of the risk for developing dementia across the lifespan (Livingston et al., 2017) and are recognized as important targets for non-pharmacological interventions aiming to prevent or delay cognitive decline. Multimodal intervention strategies have received particular interest, with over a dozen ongoing trials testing the assumption that targeting multiple risk factors would lead to additive or even synergetic effects on preserving functional independence in older age (Kivipelto et al., 2020).

Recent systematic reviews have supported the efficacy of cognitive training (Gavelin, Lampit, Hallock, Sabates, & Bahar-Fuchs, 2020; Hill et al., 2017; Lampit, Hallock, & Valenzuela, 2014; Leung et al., 2015) and physical exercise (Falck, Davis, Best, Crockett, & Liu-Ambrose, 2019; Northey, Cherbuin, Pumpa, Smee, & Rattray, 2018) on cognitive performance in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. These interventions have also been recommended in clinical practice guidelines (e.g., for mild cognitive impairment; Petersen et al., 2018) and, increasingly, the possibility of combining physical exercise with cognitively challenging activities has been highlighted as a way to maintain both cognitive and physical health (Yang et al., 2019).

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported cognitive benefits following combined cognitive and physical interventions in older adults, with or without cognitive impairment (Gheysen et al., 2018; Karssemeijer et al., 2017; Stanmore, Stubbs, Vancampfort, de Bruin, & Firth, 2017; Zhu, Yin, Lang, He, & Li, 2016), suggesting efficacy over and above physical exercise alone, and comparable to that of cognitive training. However, these meta-analyses mixed older with younger populations (Stanmore et al., 2017) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) with other designs (Gheysen et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2016) or included a combination of cognitive training and other cognition-oriented treatments, such as cognitive stimulation or non-specific cognitive activities (Karssemeijer et al., 2017).

Furthermore, most meta-analyses have so far focused on cognitive outcomes (Gheysen et al., 2018; Stanmore et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2016) and the efficacy of combined interventions on physical and everyday function in general, and in comparison to more traditional physical exercise interventions in particular, is not yet established.

A key outstanding question in the field is how the efficacy of combined physical and cognitive interventions is related to the mode of delivery. Combined interventions can be broadly divided into sequential or simultaneous designs. Sequential designs deliver the intervention modalities in separate sessions, usually during the same period (e.g., Ngandu et al., 2015) or, less commonly, on separate periods throughout the course of the intervention (Heffernan et al., 2019). Simultaneous interventions are usually based on either delivery of cognitive training while asking participants to exercise at the same time, or by using exergaming, i.e., physically active videogames that include cognitively challenging tasks (see definitions under 2.3.3. Types of interventions below).

While previous meta-analyses have provided some indications that simultaneous training leads to larger effects on cognition than those of sequential designs (Gheysen et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2016), results have so far been inconclusive. Importantly, this question is difficult to ascertain in pairwise meta-analysis, since the relative efficacy of combined interventions is likely to be influenced by the type of control group activity (i.e., cognitive training or physical exercise alone, active or passive control), which varies considerably across studies (Gheysen et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2016). In this context, network meta-analysis can be used to compare efficacy estimates of the different delivery formats to single modality or other types of control conditions. Such an approach has been conducted in a previous systematic review (Bruderer-Hofstetter, Rausch-Osthoff, Meichtry, Munzer, & Niedermann, 2018); however, due to the large number of treatment nodes and a relatively small number of included studies, the precision of the effect estimates was limited, and comparisons were largely inconclusive. Finally, the efficacy of exergaming in older adults is still unclear due to the limitations noted above as well as a recent re-analysis of Stanmore et al. (2017), suggesting considerably smaller effects and potential small study bias (Sala, Tatlidil, & Gobet, 2019).

The aim of the current review is therefore twofold: (1) conduct pairwise meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of combined cognitive and physical training interventions on cognitive, physical, psychosocial and functional outcomes in older adults across RCTs; and (2) apply network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy of the three main types of combined intervention delivery formats (simultaneous, sequential and exergaming) on cognitive and physical function relative to either intervention alone or inert control conditions.

METHOD

Protocol and registration

This work adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009) and PRISMA extension for network meta-analysis (Hutton et al., 2015) and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420201435 09).

Search strategy and study selection

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO from inception to 23 July 2019 to identify RCTs examining the effects of combined cognitive and physical training on cognitive, physical, psychosocial or functional outcomes (see Supplementary Material 1 for the full search strategy). No restrictions on language or publication type were applied. Two independent reviewers (CD and MM or AW) conducted initial screening of titles and abstracts and assessed full-text versions of potentially relevant articles. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (AL or HMG). The electronic search was complemented by hand-searching the references of included papers and previous reviews.

Eligibility criteria

Types of studies

Published, peer-reviewed reports of RCTs investigating the effects of a combined cognitive and physical exercise intervention on one or more cognitive, physical, psychosocial or functional outcome in older adults were included. The primary outcome was cognitive function; therefore, eligible studies needed to provide at least one untrained cognitive outcome. Studies were included if they compared a combined intervention with cognitive or physical training alone, a control intervention or a passive control group. Randomized crossover trials were included, but only the first treatment phase was considered for analysis to avoid the influence of potential carryover effects.

Types of participants

Studies were included if they focused on older adults and had a mean age of 60 years or older. This included cognitively healthy older adults, people with subjective cognitive complaints, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia or Parkinson’s disease, all are populations for which the efficacy of cognitive training or physical exercise have been evaluated in previous systematic reviews. Eligibility was confirmed by examining the study inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics of the sample.

Types of interventions

Studies were included if they focused on interventions combining process-based cognitive training with structured physical exercise. Process-based cognitive training was defined as repeated practice on tasks targeting one or several cognitive domains, as opposed to explicit learning of strategies (Lustig, Shah, Seidler, & Reuter-Lorenz, 2009). Physical exercise included any form of structured physical activity, such as aerobic exercise, strength or functional (i.e., gait or balance) training. Combined interventions could be delivered as (1) simultaneous training: cognitive training and physical exercise delivered concurrently in a dual-task format; (2) sequential training: cognitive training and physical exercise delivered in separate sessions, either on the same day or on different days; or (3) exergaming: physically active video games including cognitively challenging tasks. Exergaming interventions were included if the games placed cognitive demands, such as requiring attention, processing speed, planning or decision making, at a level commensurate with process-based cognitive training; pure exercise or sport games, such as yoga or balance exercises were excluded. To allow the inclusion of multicomponent strategies, interventions including other components such as psychoeducation, strategy-based cognitive training or diet were eligible as long as cognitive training and physical exercise were each provided for at least 20% of the total intervention time. Studies with interventions that comprised more than 20% of one intervention but less than 20% of the other (e.g., Ngandu et al., 2015) were excluded.

Types of controls

Studies were included if they compared a combined intervention with physical exercise, cognitive training, a sham intervention (e.g. health education, relaxation, stretching or non-specific cognitive activities such as data entry on a computer) or a passive control group (wait-list, no-contact). In multi-arm studies, all eligible control conditions were included.

Types of outcomes

Outcomes included were change from baseline to post-intervention on measures of untrained cognitive outcomes (global or domain-specific), performance-based physical exercise outcomes (aerobic capacity, strength, mobility, balance or gait), psychosocial outcomes (neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, quality of life) and functional outcomes (activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental ADL).

Data collection and coding

Data were extracted by one reviewer (HMG or CD) and checked against the original publication by another reviewer (SA). For each study, we extracted population, intervention and control characteristics and results for each eligible outcome. Outcomes were recorded as mean and standard deviation for each condition and time-point (pre and post intervention). When means and standard deviations were not available, data were entered as mean change and standard deviation or mean differences and 95% confidence interval (CI). If data could not be extracted from the study report, we contacted the authors and asked for missing group-level data. For data extraction purposes, cognitive outcomes were classified by a neuropsychologist (HMG) according to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll-Miyake taxonomy of cognitive domains described by Webb, Loh, Lampit, Bateman, and Birney (2018): (1) executive function; (2) short-term and working memory; (3) long-term storage and retrieval; (4) processing speed; (5) visual processing; and (6) fluid reasoning. Although this framework allows for further classification of cognitive outcomes into more specific narrow abilities (e.g., short-term and working memory can be further subdivided into high working memory, low working memory and short-term memory) (Webb et al., 2018), we used the broad abilities to ensure a sufficient number of studies within each category to allow for meaningful interpretation. Cognitive screening instruments, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, were classified as global cognition (Hill et al., 2017; Lampit et al., 2014). Physical outcomes were classified according to the following domains: (1) aerobic capacity; (2) strength; (3) functional mobility; (4) gait; (5) balance; and (6) cognitive-motor outcomes (concurrent physical and cognitive tasks). For cognitive-motor outcomes, only the physical performance outcome (i.e., not cognitive task performance) was included. The classifications of outcomes by domain are provided in Supplementary Material 2. Following the approach of previous meta-analyses (Gheysen et al., 2018; Stanmore et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2016), each combined intervention arm was classified according to their mode of delivery as either simultaneous, sequential or exergaming training. Comparison groups were classified as: cognitive training (cognitive training alone or in combination with sham physical exercise, e.g., stretching), physical exercise (physical exercise alone or in combination with sham cognitive training or other non-specific cognitive activities), sham interventions (active control groups, e.g., sham physical exercise and/or sham cognitive training, health education, non-specific cognitive activities) or passive control (wait-list, no-contact). Study participants were classified as either cognitively healthy, MCI, dementia or Parkinson’s disease. Studies including participants with subjective cognitive complaints but no objective cognitive impairment were classified as cognitively healthy. Classification of clinical populations were based on the definitions provided by the study authors; for MCI this could include diagnosis based on clinical assessment and/or cognitive cut-off scores. If a study included a cognitively or physically frail population without further specification of diagnosis (e.g., people in long-term nursing homes), we classified the population based on the cognitive and functional status at baseline (Hill et al., 2017).

Risk of bias within studies

Two independent reviewers (CD and RM) assessed the risk of bias in individual studies using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2; Sterne et al., 2019). Disagreements were resolved by consulting a third reviewer (HMG or AL). Studies with high risk of bias or some concerns in the domains bias due to missing outcome data or bias in measurement of the outcome were considered as having a high risk of bias or some concerns, respectively (Hill et al., 2017; Lampit et al., 2014).

Data analysis

Analyses were conducted using the R packages robumeta (Fisher, Tipton, & Zhipeng, 2017), clubSandwich (Pustejovsky, 2020) and netmeta (Rücker, Krahn, König, Efthimiou, & Schwarzer, 2020). Between-group differences in change from baseline to post-intervention were converted to standardized mean differences and calculated as Hedges’ g with 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooling of effect estimates across studies were conducted using random-effects models. Studies including participants with dementia and Parkinson’s disease were excluded from the pooled analyses due to an insufficient number of identified studies available for analysis (k=2 for dementia and Parkinson’s disease, respectively; see 3.2 Characteristics of included studies). Instead, these studies were summarized narratively.

The analysis was conducted in two steps: First, pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using robust variance estimation implemented in robumeta, accounting for the dependency structure of effect estimates within studies (Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, 2010). Analyses were performed for overall cognitive (Gheysen et al., 2018; Hill et al., 2017; Lampit et al., 2014; Stanmore et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2016), physical (Falck et al., 2019), psychosocial and functional outcomes (Hill et al., 2017) as well as for each cognitive and physical subdomain separately. Heterogeneity across studies was quantified using τ2 and expressed as a proportion of overall observed variance using the I2 statistic (Borenstein, Higgins, Hedges, & Rothstein, 2017). Prediction intervals were calculated to assess the dispersion of true effects (Riley, Higgins, & Deeks, 2011). Subgroup analyses based on pre-specified categorical moderators (population group, intervention duration, supervision, risk of bias) were conducted using mixed-effects meta-regression models. Small-study effect was investigated by visually inspecting funnel plots of effect size vs standard error and formally tested using the Egger’s test (Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997; Sterne et al., 2011).

Second, random-effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist framework, implemented in the netmeta package for R. To examine the transitivity assumptions, we created a table summarizing potential effect modifiers (population and design characteristics) to explore whether these were similarly distributed across the different comparisons. The geometry of the network was summarized in a network graph and league tables were created to display the relative effect sizes of all available comparisons. Ranking of treatments were estimated using P-scores, representing the extent of certainty that an intervention is more effective than another intervention, averaged over all treatment arms (Rucker & Schwarzer, 2015). Sensitivity analyses were conducted excluding trials with a high risk of bias, and by conducting separate analyses for studies classified as cognitively healthy older adults and MCI. The certainty of the evidence was investigated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool (Nikolakopoulou et al., 2020; Papakonstantinou, Nikolakopoulou, Higgins, Egger, & Salanti, 2020), incorporating six domains: within-study bias, reporting bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity and incoherence.

RESULTS

Study selection

After exclusion of duplicate search results, we screened 23,102 articles for eligibility, of which 22,690 were excluded based on titles and abstracts. Consequently, 412 articles were assessed in full-text screening. Of these, 45 unique studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. A list of the excluded studies (with reasons) is provided in Supplementary Material 3. Two additional eligible studies were identified through manual search (Adcock et al., 2020; Rezola-Pardo et al., 2019). Thus, a total of 47 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Additionally, eight secondary outcome articles were identified (Boa Sorte Silva, Gill, Gregory, Bocti, & Petrella, 2018; Boa Sorte Silva, Gregory, Gill, & Petrella, 2017; Eggenberger, Theill, Holenstein, Schumacher, & de Bruin, 2015; Fraser et al., 2017; Hagovska & Nagyova, 2017; Hagovska & Olekszyova, 2016; Mavros et al., 2017; Middleton et al., 2018) and included along with other manuscripts from the same study. The authors of seven studies (Barban et al., 2017; Boa Sorte Silva, Gill, Owen, et al., 2018; Htut, Hiengkaew, Jalayondeja, & Vongsirinavarat, 2018; Mavros et al., 2017; McDaniel et al., 2014; Middleton et al., 2018; Ten Brinke et al., 2019) were contacted for data and four (Htut et al., 2018; Mavros et al., 2017; Middleton et al., 2018; Ten Brinke et al., 2019) provided data.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow chart

Characteristics of included studies

The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. The included studies encompassed 4052 participants with mean age ranging between 65.0 and 87.2 years. The majority of the studies included cognitively healthy older adults (k=30, n=2866), two of which (Barnes et al., 2013; Boa Sorte Silva, Gill, Owen, et al., 2018) included participants with subjective cognitive complaints. Twelve studies included participants with MCI and one additional study (Stanmore et al., 2019) included people living in assisted living facilities without severe cognitive impairment. This study was classified as MCI for the purpose of the subgroup analyses, giving a total of 13 studies (n=932) in this category. Two studies included participants with Parkinson’s disease without dementia (Pompeu et al., 2012; Song et al., 2018). One study included people with dementia (Karssemeijer et al., 2019) and one included long-term nursing home residents (Rezola-Pardo et al., 2019), which was classified as dementia and thus excluded from the pooled analyses. Intervention duration ranged from four to 40 weeks (median = 12 weeks). Sixteen studies combined cognitive and physical training using a sequential design, in which eight provided physical and cognitive training in separate sessions (Barnes et al., 2013; Desjardins-Crepeau et al., 2016; Fabre, Chamari, Mucci, Masse-Biron, & Prefaut, 2002; Maffei et al., 2017; McDaniel et al., 2014; Romera-Liebana et al., 2018; Shatil, 2013; van het Reve & de Bruin, 2014), and eight implemented the cognitive and physical training back-to-back within the same session (Barban et al., 2017; Damirchi, Hosseini, & Babaei, 2018; Fiatarone Singh et al., 2014; Hagovska, Takáč, & Dzvonik, 2016; Legault et al., 2011; Linde & Alfermann, 2014; Rahe et al., 2015; Ten Brinke et al., 2019). Thirteen studies used a simultaneous design (Boa Sorte Silva, Gill, Owen, et al., 2018; Combourieu Donnezan, Perrot, Belleville, Bloch, & Kemoun, 2018; Hiyamizu, Morioka, Shomoto, & Shimada, 2012; Kitazawa et al., 2015; Laatar, Kachouri, Borji, Rebai, & Sahli, 2018; Leon, Urena, Bolanos, Bilbao, & Ona, 2015; Mrakic-Sposta et al., 2018; Nishiguchi et al., 2015; Norouzi, Vaezmosavi, Gerber, Puhse, & Brand, 2019; Park et al., 2019; Reigal & Mendo, 2014; Rezola-Pardo et al., 2019; Shimada et al., 2018) and 17 studies included exergaming interventions (Adcock et al., 2020; Anderson-Hanley et al., 2018; Bacha et al., 2018; Barcelos et al., 2015; Delbroek, Vermeylen, & Spildooren, 2017; Eggenberger, Wolf, Schumann, & de Bruin, 2016; Gschwind et al., 2015; Htut et al., 2018; Hughes et al., 2014; Karssemeijer et al., 2019; Maillot, Perrot, & Hartley, 2012; Pompeu et al., 2012; Schattin, Arner, Gennaro, & de Bruin, 2016; Schoene et al., 2013; Schoene et al., 2015; Song et al., 2018; Stanmore et al., 2019). One study (Eggenberger, Schumacher, Angst, Theill, & de Bruin, 2015) included an exergaming as well as a simultaneous intervention, while another (Rahe et al., 2015) included two sequential training intervention arms, one of which also included motivational counselling. The latter study was split into two separate studies for the network meta-analysis to allow for inclusion of both sequential training arms in the analysis. Comparison conditions included physical exercise (k=29), cognitive training (k=13), sham interventions (k=14) and passive control (k=19). Ten studies (21%) had a high risk of bias, 17 (36%) had some concerns, and 20 (43%) had a low risk of bias (Supplementary Material 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Pairwise meta-analysis

Efficacy on cognitive function

Across 43 studies and 491 effect estimates, the overall effect of combined interventions on cognitive function was moderate and statistically significant, Hedges’ g 0.34 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.55), with high heterogeneity (τ2 = 0.29, I2 = 82%). The funnel plot revealed two conspicuous outliers, both reporting implausibly large g values of 1.74 (Laatar et al., 2018) and 4.52-5.54 (Leon et al., 2015) under high risk of bias. The studies were therefore removed from all further analysis. After removal of these outliers, heterogeneity was reduced, and the funnel plot showed no significant asymmetry (β = 0.51, p = 0.24, Supplementary Material 5). Across the remaining 41 studies and 482 effect estimates, the overall effect on cognitive outcomes was small and statistically significant, g = 0.22 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, τ2 = 0.08, I2 = 56%, prediction interval - 0.34 to 0.78). The results of individual studies and comparisons are provided in Supplementary Material 6. There was no statistically significant difference in effect estimates between studies classified as low (k=16, g = 0.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30), some concerns (k=17, g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.44) or high risk of bias (k=8, g = 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.33, Supplementary Material 7).

Moderator analysis showed a statistically significant effect for healthy older adults (k = 28, g = 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.29) and MCI (k = 13, g = 0.26, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.46), with no significant difference between the groups. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of interventions that were 12 weeks or shorter (k=25, g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.36) compared to interventions with a duration of > 12 weeks (k=16, g = 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30). Similarly, no evidence for statistically significant subgroup difference was found for supervised training (k=37, g = 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31) compared to unsupervised training (k=4, g = 0.14, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.42), however, because of the small number of studies with unsupervised training (i.e., df<4), these results should be interpreted with caution. The full results of the moderator analyses for cognitive outcomes are shown in Supplementary Material 7.

For the different cognitive domains, statistically significant effect estimates were found for executive function (k=27, g = 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.30), short-term and working memory (k=21, g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.55), long-term storage and retrieval (k=18, g = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30), processing speed (k=22, g = 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27), fluid reasoning (k=7, g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.46) and global cognition (k=15, g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53), but not for visual processing (k=6, g = 0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.40, Supplementary Material 8).

Physical function

Thirty-two studies reporting 307 effect estimates were available for physical outcomes. The overall effect was small and statistically significant, g = 0.25 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.37), with moderate heterogeneity (τ2 = 0.12, I2 = 63%, 95% prediction interval -0.46 to 0.96). The results of individual studies and comparisons are provided in Supplementary Material 9. There was no indication of funnel plot asymmetry (β = 0.47, p = 0.52, Supplementary Material 5). No statistically significant difference was found in effect estimates between studies classified as low (k=12, g =0.28, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.55), some concerns (k=16, g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.39) or high risk of bias (k=4, g = 0.20, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.60, Supplementary Material 10). Moderator analysis further showed no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of combined interventions on physical outcomes for healthy older adults (k=24, g = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.38) and MCI (k=8, g = 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52). A significant moderating effect was found for intervention duration, whereby a beneficial effect was seen for interventions that were 12 weeks or shorter (k=21, g = 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48) but not for interventions with > 12 weeks duration (k=11, g = 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28, Supplementary Material 10). No significant moderating effect on physical outcomes was seen for training supervision (supervised: k=28, g = 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40; unsupervised: k=4, g = 0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.56), however, due to the small number of studies with unsupervised training, these results should be interpreted with caution.

For the physical subdomains, a statistically significant effect was found for functional mobility (k=22, g = 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.52), but not for strength (k=9, g = 0.17, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.44), aerobic capacity (k=14, g = 0.10, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.26), balance (k=12, g = 0.23, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.49), gait (k=10, g = 0.06, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.34) or cognitive-motor outcomes (k=14, g = 0.19, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.39) (Supplementary Material 11).

Psychosocial function

Nine studies reporting 20 psychosocial effect estimates were available, six in healthy older adults and three in MCI. The results of individual studies and comparisons are provided in Supplementary Material 12. The overall effect was small and statistically non-significant, g = 0.28 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.72) with high heterogeneity (τ2 = 0.24, I2 = 81%, prediction interval - 0.97 to 1.53). Visual inspection of the funnel plot revealed one outlier (Hagovska et al., 2016) (see Supplementary Material 5), reporting an effect estimate of g = 1.80. A sensitivity analysis after removal of the outlier revealed a negligible but statistically significant effect, g = 0.10 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.20) with no heterogeneity (τ2 = 0.00, I2 = 0%).

Functional abilities

Only two studies were identified that reported functional outcomes and data were therefore not pooled in meta-analysis. Both studies included participants with MCI.

Improvements following combined interventions were reported for ADL (Hagovska & Nagyova, 2017) but not for instrumental ADL (Fiatarone Singh et al., 2014; Hagovska et al., 2016). One additional study (Gschwind et al., 2015) reported no significant benefit in general health and disability in healthy older adults.

Dementia and Parkinson’s disease

The results for dementia (k=2) and Parkinson’s disease (k=2) are provided in Supplementary Material 13, showing no significant benefits on overall cognitive, physical or psychosocial function in the individual studies and comparisons. In Parkinson’s disease, two studies reported no cognitive or physical benefits of exergaming compared to PE (Pompeu et al.,2012) or passive control (Song et al., 2018). For dementia, Karssemeijer et al. (2019) reported improvements in psychomotor speed following an exergaming intervention compared to sham intervention, but not compared to PE alone. No differences between the groups were found in working memory, executive function or working memory. Finally, Rezola-Pardo et al. (2019) reported no additional benefits of simultaneous training compared to PE alone on a range of cognitive, physical and psychosocial outcomes in people living in long-term nursing homes.

Network meta-analysis

One study (Htut et al., 2018) was excluded from the network meta-analysis due to inconsistent treatment estimates and variances. Visual inspection of potential effect modifiers showed that these were similarly distributed across the network of included comparisons (Supplementary Material 14), suggesting that the transitivity assumption was plausible. Four studies used unsupervised training, all of which compared exergaming with passive control (Adcock et al., 2020; Gschwind et al., 2015; Schoene et al., 2013; Schoene et al., 2015). These studies were therefore downgraded to moderate indirectness in the grading of the certainty of the evidence. Figure 2 visualizes the well-connected network structure for both cognitive (Fig. 2a) and physical (Fig. 2b) outcomes, indicating a high amount of direct evidence for the various treatment comparisons. The most frequently examined comparisons were between sequential training, physical exercise, cognitive training and sham intervention, as well as between exergaming and passive control.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 2.

Network plot for (a) cognitive outcomes and (b) physical outcomes. The width of the lines represents the number of studies comparing each pair of treatments. The size of the circle represents the sample size in each arm. CT = cognitive training. Exg = exergaming. Passive = passive control. PE = physical exercise. Seq = sequential training. Sham = sham intervention. Sim = simultaneous training.

Cognitive function

Network meta-analysis for cognitive outcomes included 41 studies, 28 in healthy older adults and 13 in MCI. The results are shown in Table 2. Indirect evidence was obtained for four comparisons for which direct evidence was unavailable (exergaming vs cognitive training, exergaming vs sequential training, sham intervention vs passive control, and sequential vs simultaneous training, Fig 2a). All conditions except sham interventions were significantly more efficacious for cognitive function than passive control (g range 0.18 to 0.43). Simultaneous and sequential training was significantly more efficacious for cognitive function than physical exercise (g = 0.24 and 0.15, respectively) and sham intervention (g = 0.31 and 0.22, respectively). A statistically significant benefit was also found for simultaneous training relative to exergaming (g = 0.25). No significant differences were found between the three types of combined interventions compared to cognitive training alone (g range -0.14 to 0.11). The certainty of the evidence is shown in Supplementary Material 15. Confidence ratings were moderate or high for the majority of the comparisons, with the exception of low certainty of the evidence due to within study bias and imprecision for the comparisons of exergaming vs. sequential training, cognitive training and sham interventions; and simultaneous training vs. sequential training and cognitive training.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Relative effect estimates for the contrasts between the different intervention and control arms on cognitive function (below diagonal) and physical function (above diagonal). Statistically significant effects are shown in bold.

Physical function

The network meta-analysis for physical outcomes included 32 studies, 24 in cognitively healthy older adults and eight in MCI. Indirect evidence was calculated for the same four comparisons as above for which direct evidence was unavailable. Simultaneous training, sequential training, exergaming and physical exercise were all significantly more efficacious for physical function than passive control (g range 0.21 to 0.44, Table 2). Simultaneous training, sequential training and physical exercise were significantly more efficacious for physical function than cognitive training (g range 0.21 to 0.33) and sham intervention (g range 0.23 to 0.35). Certainty of the evidence was low or very low for the majority of the comparisons, mainly due to within-study bias, imprecision and heterogeneity, with the exception of high certainty for the comparison between sequential training and passive control and moderate certainty for the comparison between simultaneous training and passive control; and physical exercise and passive control (Supplementary Material 15).

Ranking of interventions

Figure 3 shows the relative rankings of the interventions with passive control as the reference treatment. For cognitive function, simultaneous training ranked best (P-score 0.96, Hedges’ g 0.43) followed by sequential training (P-score 0.78, Hedges’ g 0.34) and cognitive training (P-score 0.73, Hedges’ g 0.32). For physical function, simultaneous training ranked best (P-score 0.90, Hedges’ g 0.44), followed by sequential training (P-score 0.89, Hedges’ g 0.43) and physical exercise (P-score 0.67, Hedges’ g 0.32).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Fig. 3.

Forest plot showing the relative ranking and effect estimate of interventions with passive control as reference for overall (a) cognitive and (b) physical outcomes. CT = cognitive training. Exg = exergaming. Passive = passive control. PE = physical exercise. Seq = sequential training. Sham = sham intervention. Sim = simultaneous training.

Sensitivity analyses

The results from the sensitivity analyses are shown in Supplementary Material 16. The first sensitivity analysis excluded studies with a high risk of bias. In the second sensitivity analysis, we performed separate analyses for studies with healthy older adults and MCI. Overall, results were highly convergent to the main analysis, although the small number of studies including participants with MCI (k=13 for cognitive outcomes and k=8 for physical outcomes) reduced the precision of effect estimates.

DISCUSSION

The results from our analyses of overall cognitive and physical effects suggest that in cognitively healthy older adults and those with MCI, simultaneous and sequential training lead to comparable cognitive benefits as cognitive training alone, while their efficacy on physical function is similar to that of physical exercise alone. Thus, although combined physical and cognitive interventions do not seem to induce additive cognitive effects beyond that of cognitive training alone, their physical efficacy make these a compelling strategy for maintaining cognitive alongside physical health in late life. Given the average dose of simultaneous training was substantially lower than that of sequential designs (mean total training hours: 33 [range 8 to 72] and 60 [range 21 to 252], respectively) with comparable efficacy, the former might be considered as a more feasible option in clinical and community settings. Conversely, our results reveal small effect estimates and lower relative rankings for exergaming and thus do not support the efficacy of such interventions, at least at this stage.

Interpretation of results and comparison with previous research

Our findings confirm the positive effects of combined interventions on cognitive function reported in previous meta-analyses (Gheysen et al., 2018; Karssemeijer et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2016). Cognitive gains were found across most cognitive domains, whereas for physical function, a statistically significant effect was only observed for functional mobility outcomes, which was also the most frequently investigated outcome category. The overall cognitive and physical benefits were similar for cognitively healthy older adults and those with MCI and were not substantially influenced by bias within or across studies. Cognitive effect estimates did not depend on training duration; however, for physical outcomes, significant benefits were only observed for shorter (≤12 weeks) interventions. No evidence for a moderating effect of training supervision was found, although this should be interpreted with caution given that the majority of the included studies involved supervised training.

We did not find robust evidence that combined interventions improve psychosocial function, nor did we identify enough studies reporting on functional outcomes to synthesize the results in a pooled analysis. Although a statistically significant effect was observed for psychosocial function after outlier removal, the effect size was small and likely not of clinical significance. Previous systematic reviews have reported mixed results for functional outcomes (Bruderer-Hofstetter et al., 2018; Karssemeijer et al., 2017), while providing some evidence for benefit of combined interventions on mood in individuals with MCI and dementia (Karssemeijer et al., 2017). Thus, the efficacy of combined interventions on psychosocial and functional outcomes warrants further investigation and likely requires more consistent inclusion of these outcomes in primary trials in order to examine the extent to which these interventions can improve a wider range of clinically meaningful endpoints (Gavelin et al., 2020), particularly so for individuals with cognitive and functional impairment. Finally, the number of identified studies for dementia and Parkinson’s disease was too small to allow for reliable pooling of the data. Based on the limited evidence available, the observed benefits on cognitive, physical and psychosocial function for these populations appear to be more modest, however, the heterogeneous intervention and control conditions included across a small set of studies limits firm conclusions.

The cognitive effect estimates and ranking of the network meta-analysis suggest greater benefit of simultaneous training compared to sequential training or cognitive training alone, but these differences were not statistically significant and cannot be inferred from the current body of RCTs. Systematic reviews indicate that both physical (Firth et al., 2018) and cognitive (van Balkom, van den Heuvel, Berendse, van der Werf, & Vriend, 2020) training lead to positive neurobiological changes with potential therapeutic relevance. The therapeutic premise of combined interventions is that physical and cognitive activities might influence brain plasticity through distinct and complementary pathways, whereby physical exercise induces physiological changes (e.g., upregulation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, stimulation of hippocampal neurogenesis) which, in turn, facilitates the experience-dependent neuroplastic effects of cognitive engagement (Fissler, Kuster, Schlee, & Kolassa, 2013; Kempermann et al., 2010). Due to the transient release of neurotrophic factors following physical exercise (Knaepen, Goekint, Heyman, & Meeusen, 2010), it has been suggested that the physical and cognitive activity should be conducted in close temporal proximity to achieve maximal benefit (Fissler et al., 2013), with potential order effect (Nilsson et al., 2020). This provides a potential mechanistic account for the observed cognitive benefits of simultaneous training, but the evidence base is still inconclusive and such effects are likely dependent on exercise intensity. Therefore, the optimal combination method remains an open question in the field, warranting head-to-head trials aiming to optimise efficacy and adherence while taking into account the feasibility of practical implementation.

Finally, in keeping with the results from previous meta-analyses (Gheysen et al., 2018; Stanmore et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2016), we found that combined interventions augment the cognitive effects of physical exercise alone. A recent meta-analysis of 48 RCTs (Falck et al., 2019) found a small effect of physical exercise for overall cognition in healthy older adults and those with MCI (g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.33), as well as a relationship between cognitive and physical effect estimates. However, after accounting for small study effect, Falck et al. (2019) estimated the true cognitive effect estimate at g = 0.14, which is similar to the comparison of physical exercise vs passive control in our network meta-analysis.

For physical function, the results from the network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of simultaneous training, sequential training and physical exercise alone. This suggests that combining physical exercise with cognitive training, even in a simultaneous design, does not come at the cost of reduced efficacy of the physical intervention component. In contrast, the cognitive and physical benefits of exergaming appear to be smaller than those of simultaneous and sequential training. One potential explanation for this observation is that the cognitive and physical demands of exergaming might be smaller than in more traditional cognitive and physical training. Our results contrast the medium-sized cognitive effect found for active videogames by Stanmore et al. (2017) and are closer to those reported in a re-analysis by Sala et al. (2019). While gamification of health interventions, such as exergaming, may facilitate intervention design characteristics that motivate behaviour change (Johnson et al., 2016), ensuring that the cognitive and physical demands of exergaming interventions match those of more traditional physical exercise and cognitive training interventions seems imperative.

From a clinical and practical perspective, the cognitive and physical improvements observed following simultaneous training are encouraging, since this is a time- and resource-effective approach for targeting multiple risk factors for cognitive and functional decline. Sequential physical and cognitive training interventions generally require high-frequency training, which may induce stress and fatigue reactions that counteract training effects (Lampit et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2016). Additionally, it has been suggested that simultaneous training may have positive effects on training enjoyment, as compared to sequential training (McEwen et al., 2018) and physical exercise alone (Eggenberger, Schumacher, et al., 2015), although this issue needs further clarification. Based on the results from the sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Material 16), we found no evidence to suggest that simultaneous training is less feasible or efficacious for cognition in MCI compared to cognitively healthy older adults, indicating that this approach can be successfully implemented also for those with mildly impaired cognition. An important avenue for future research is to delineate the specific intervention characteristics of simultaneous training, such as physical and cognitive training content, dose and frequency, that are the most important for training effectiveness, to inform practical implementation.

Limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of RCTs investigating combined cognitive physical and cognitive training in older adults across intervention and control designs and is substantially larger compared to previous pairwise meta-analyses. Our approach facilitates simultaneous treatment comparisons and improves precision of the effect size estimates (Salanti, 2012), thus allowing firmer conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness and relative rankings of the different types of combined interventions. However, some limitations should be addressed. First, although we used stringent inclusion criteria to ensure that the interventions were reasonably similar across studies, the included treatments nevertheless consisted of a variety of physical exercise (e.g., aerobic, strength, mobility and balance) and cognitive training (e.g., computerized or non-computerized, targeting single or multiple cognitive domains, videogames) elements. This suggests that further dismantling of the specific cognitive and physical components that make up an effective combined intervention should be explored; this could be achieved through component network meta-analysis (Rucker, Petropoulou, & Schwarzer, 2020). Nevertheless, there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity or inconsistency in the results of the network meta-analyses and the certainty of the evidence was moderate to high for most comparisons of cognitive outcomes. In contrast, the confidence in the results of the network meta-analysis for physical outcomes was low to very low for several of the comparisons, mainly owing to concerns regarding imprecision in the effect estimates and within-study bias. Thus, while these initial results are encouraging, the low certainty of the evidence for physical outcomes suggests that the relative treatment estimates may change as a consequence of future, high-quality research. Second, we did not identify enough studies for dementia and Parkinson’s disease to allow for reliable pooling of the data. Thus, further research is needed to establish the potential benefits and comparative efficacy of combined interventions for individuals with more prominent cognitive and/or physical impairment. Third, investigation of potential effect modifiers such as exercise type, intensity or training frequency was not feasible under the network meta-analysis framework due to insufficient number of studies within each node. Although a larger meta-analysis of physical exercise did not find evidence to support exercise modalities as a mediator of cognitive outcomes (Falck et al., 2019), such effects are likely and would be informative for future research and practice in the field. Finally, this meta-analysis was restricted to investigation of post-intervention effects and the effects of combined interventions in the medium-long term should be explored.

Conclusions

Across 47 RCTs of narrowly-defined combined cognitive training and physical exercise interventions, we show that combined cognitive and physical training, delivered either simultaneously or sequentially, is efficacious in promoting both cognitive and physical health in older age, at least in the short term. These benefits were observed in cognitively healthy older adults, as well as for participants with MCI. Simultaneous training showed comparable cognitive benefits as sequential training and cognitive training alone, while also achieving similar physical improvements as physical exercise, suggesting this is a resource-effective approach for targeting multiple dementia risk factors. Exergaming interventions might incorporate elements from simultaneous training in game design to augment their cognitive and physical efficacy. More research is needed to establish whether cognitive and physical improvements following combined interventions translate into improved everyday function and well-being, what specific components make up an effective combined intervention, and what regimens are needed in order to maintain long-term gains.

Data Availability

All underlying data are appended to the manuscript.

Competing interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 1. Search strategy

Supplementary Material 2. Classification of cognitive and physical outcomes

Supplementary Material 3. List of excluded studies

Supplementary Material 4. Risk of bias within individual studies

Supplementary Material 5. Funnel plots for cognitive, physical and psychosocial outcomes

Supplementary Material 6. Results of individual studies and comparisons: Overall cognition

Supplementary Material 7. Moderator analyses for cognitive outcomes

Supplementary Material 8. Meta-analyses of cognitive domains

Supplementary Material 9. Results of individual studies and comparisons: Physical outcomes

Supplementary Material 10. Moderator analyses for physical outcomes

Supplementary Material 11. Meta-analyses of physical domains

Supplementary Material 12. Results of individual studies and comparisons: Psychosocial outcomes

Supplementary Material 13. Results of individual studies and comparisons: Dementia and Parkinson’s disease

Supplementary Material 14. Distribution of potential effect modifiers

Supplementary Material 15. CINeMA grading of the certainty of the evidence

Supplementary Material 16. Sensitivity analyses

Supplementary Material 1. Search strategy (Ovid)

  1. (cognitive training or brain training or attention training or reasoning training or memory training or mental training or mental skills training or neurocognitive training).mp

  2. (cognitive exercise or brain exercise or memory exercise or attention exercise or reasoning exercise).mp

  3. (cognitive stimulation or memory stimulation or memory enhanc$ or cognitive enhanc$).mp

  4. (cognitive rehabilitat$ or cognitive remediation or cognitive restructur$).mp

  5. (cognitive activit$ or mental activit$).mp

  6. (speed and processing and training).mp

  7. (mnemonic$ or method of loci).mp

  8. (video game$ or videogame$ or wii or computer game$ or virtual reality).mp

  9. (cognitive intervention$ or neurocognitive intervention$ or neuropsychological intervention$).mp

  10. exercis$.mp

  11. sport$.mp

  12. exp Exercise/

  13. exp Physical fitness/

  14. (aerobic exercis$ or aerobic train$ or aerobic fitness or aerobic program$).mp

  15. (resistance exercis$ or resistance train$ or anaerobic exercis$ or anaerobic train$ or resistance program$).mp

  16. (physical or aerobic or endurance or cardiorespiratory or cardiovascular or resistance or strength).mp

  17. (bicycl$ or bike rid$ or bicycle rid$).mp

  18. (multimodal or multidomain or multicomponent or multi-modal or multi-domain or multi-component or dual task or dual-task or tai chi or taiji or tai chi chuan or danc$).mp

  19. (exergam$ or active video game$ or active videogame$ or kinect or active play or interactive video).mp

  20. (cognitive adj2 physical).mp

  21. (cognition or cognitive or memory or executive function$ or executive control or attention or visuospatial or processing speed or language).mp

  22. (older adults or elder$ or senior$ or adult$ or older or ag?ing).mp

  23. (mild cognitive impairment or mildly cognitively impaired or Parkins$ or dement$ or alzheimer$).mp

  24. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9

  25. 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17

  26. 22 or 23

  27. 24 and 25

  28. 18 or 19 or 20

  29. (27 or 28) and 21 and 26

Supplementary Material 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 2.

Classification of cognitive and physical outcomes

Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 3.

List of excluded studies. (Note: a study could be ineligible for multiple reasons but appear only once in this table.)

Supplementary Material 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 4.

Risk of bias within individual studies

Supplementary Material 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 5.

Funnel plots of cognitive, physical and psychosocial outcomes Cognitive outcomes (with outliers) Cognitive outcomes (without outliers)

Supplementary Material 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 6.

Results of individual studies and comparisons: Overall cognition

Supplementary Material 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 7.

Moderator analyses for cognitive outcomes

Supplementary Material 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 8.

Meta-analyses of cognitive domains

Supplementary Material 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 9.

Results of individual studies and comparisons: Overall physical outcomes

Supplementary Material 10.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 10.

Moderator analysis for physical outcomes

Supplementary Material 11.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 11.

Meta-analysis of physical domains

Supplementary Material 12.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 12.

Results of individual studies and comparisons: Overall psychosocial outcomes

Supplementary Material 13.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 13.

Results of individual studies and comparisons: Dementia and Parkinson’s disease

Supplementary Material 14.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 14.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 14.

Distribution of potential effect modifiers

Supplementary Material 15. CINeMA grading of the certainty of the evidence

We evaluated the certainty of the evidence for the network meta-analysis using the CINeMA web application (Papakonstantinou et al., 2020), applying the following criteria:

Within-study bias: The overall risk of bias assessment for each study was combined with the percentage contribution matrix to compute the percentage contribution for each comparison from studies with a low, some concerns and high risk of bias. The overall assessment for each comparison was based on the average risk of bias of the contributing studies.

Reporting bias: No asymmetry was detected in the funnel plot and no significant association was found between study precision and effect size for cognitive or physical outcomes. Consequently, reporting bias was set as “undetected” for all comparisons.

Indirectness: All of the included studies matched the study question and visual inspection of potential effect modifiers showed that these were similarly distributed across the network of included comparisons. However, four studies used unsupervised training, all of which compared exergaming with passive control. These studies were therefore downgraded to “moderate” indirectness. All other studies were set as “low” indirectness.

Imprecision, heterogeneity and incoherence: We considered a clinically meaningful threshold for SMD to be 0.20.

Certainty of the evidence for cognitive outcomes

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Certainty of the evidence for physical outcomes

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Supplementary Material 16.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Supplementary Material 16.

Sensitivity analyses

Acknowledgements

We thank Sahar Aghajari for help with data entry and the authors of primary studies for providing data and advice. MLM was funded by a scholarship from Dementia Australia. ATW is funded by a grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC GNT1171313). AL is funded by a CR Roper Fellowship from the University of Melbourne.

References

  1. ↵
    Adcock, M., Fankhauser, M., Post, J., Lutz, K., Zizlsperger, L., Luft, A. R., … de Bruin, E. D. (2020). Effects of an in-home multicomponent exergame training on physical functions, cognition, and brain volume of older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Medicine, 6, 321. doi:10.3389/fmed.2019.00321
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    Anderson-Hanley, C., Barcelos, N. M., Zimmerman, E. A., Gillen, R. W., Dunnam, M., Cohen, B. D., … Kramer, A. F. (2018). The Aerobic and Cognitive Exercise Study (ACES) for community- dwelling older adults with or at-risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI): neuropsychological, neurobiological and neuroimaging outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10, 76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00076
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    Bacha, J. M. R., Gomes, G. C. V., de Freitas, T. B., Viveiro, L. A. P., da Silva, K. G., Bueno, G. C., … Pompeu, J. E. (2018). Effects of Kinect Adventures games versus conventional physical therapy on postural control in elderly people: a randomized controlled trial. Games for Health Journal, 7(1), 24–36. doi:10.1089/g4h.2017.0065
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    Barban, F., Annicchiarico, R., Melideo, M., Federici, A., Lombardi, M. G., Giuli, S., … Caltagirone, C. (2017). Reducing fall risk with combined motor and cognitive training in elderly fallers. Brain Sciences, 7(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci7020019
  5. ↵
    Barcelos, N., Shah, N., Cohen, K., Hogan, M. J., Mulkerrin, E., Arciero, P. J., … Anderson-Hanley, C. (2015). Aerobic and Cognitive Exercise (ACE) pilot study for older adults: executive function improves with cognitive challenge while exergaming. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 21(10), 768–779. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715001083
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Barnes, D. E., Santos-Modesitt, W., Poelke, G., Kramer, A. F., Castro, C., Middleton, L. E., & Yaffe, K. (2013). The Mental Activity and eXercise (MAX) trial: A randomized controlled trial to enhance cognitive function in older adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(9), 797–804. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.189
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    Boa Sorte Silva, N. C., Gill, D. P., Gregory, M. A., Bocti, J., & Petrella, R. J. (2018). Multiple-modality exercise and mind-motor training to improve mobility in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Experimental Gerontology, 103, 17–26.
    OpenUrl
  8. Boa Sorte Silva, N. C., Gill, D. P., Owen, A. M., Liu-Ambrose, T., Hachinski, V., Shigematsu, R., & Petrella, R. J. (2018). Cognitive changes following multiple-modality exercise and mind-motor training in older adults with subjective cognitive complaints: The M4 study. PloS One, 13(4), e0196356. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196356
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    Boa Sorte Silva, N. C., Gregory, M. A., Gill, D. P., & Petrella, R. J. (2017). Multiple-modality exercise and mind-motor training to improve cardiovascular health and fitness in older adults at risk for cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 68, 149–160.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods, 8(1), 5–18. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1230
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Bruderer-Hofstetter, M., Rausch-Osthoff, A. K., Meichtry, A., Munzer, T., & Niedermann, K. (2018). Effective multicomponent interventions in comparison to active control and no interventions on physical capacity, cognitive function and instrumental activities of daily living in elderly people with and without mild impaired cognition - A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 45, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2018.04.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    Combourieu Donnezan, L., Perrot, A., Belleville, S., Bloch, F., & Kemoun, G. (2018). Effects of simultaneous aerobic and cognitive training on executive functions, cardiovascular fitness and functional abilities in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 15, 78–87. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2018.06.001
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    Damirchi, A., Hosseini, F., & Babaei, P. (2018). Mental training enhances cognitive function and BDNF more than either physical or combined training in elderly women with MCI: a small-scale study. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 33(1), 20–29. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1533317517727068
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    Delbroek, T., Vermeylen, W., & Spildooren, J. (2017). The effect of cognitive-motor dual task training with the biorescue force platform on cognition, balance and dual task performance in institutionalized older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 29(7), 1137–1143. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1589/jpts.29.1137
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    Desjardins-Crepeau, L., Berryman, N., Fraser, S. A., Vu, T. T. M., Kergoat, M. J., Li, K. Z. H., … Bherer, L. (2016). Effects of combined physical and cognitive training on fitness and neuropsychological outcomes in healthy older adults. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 11, 1287–1299. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S115711
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    Eggenberger, P., Schumacher, V., Angst, M., Theill, N., & de Bruin, E. D. (2015). Does multicomponent physical exercise with simultaneous cognitive training boost cognitive performance in older adults? A 6-month randomized controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 10, 1335–1349. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S87732
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    Eggenberger, P., Theill, N., Holenstein, S., Schumacher, V., & de Bruin, E. D. (2015). Multicomponent physical exercise with simultaneous cognitive training to enhance dual-task walking of older adults: a secondary analysis of a 6-month randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 10, 1711–1732. doi:10.2147/CIA.S91997
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    Eggenberger, P., Wolf, M., Schumann, M., & de Bruin, E. D. (2016). Exergame and balance training modulate prefrontal brain activity during walking and enhance executive function in older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 8, 66. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00066
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310563
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Fabre, C., Chamari, K., Mucci, P., Masse-Biron, J., & Prefaut, C. (2002). Improvement of cognitive function by mental and/or individualized aerobic training in healthy elderly subjects. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 23(6), 415–421. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-33735
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Falck, R. S., Davis, J. C., Best, J. R., Crockett, R. A., & Liu-Ambrose, T. (2019). Impact of exercise training on physical and cognitive function among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurobiology of Aging, 79, 119–130. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.03.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Fiatarone Singh, M. A., Gates, N., Saigal, N., Wilson, G. C., Meiklejohn, J., Brodaty, H., … Valenzuela, M. (2014). The Study of Mental and Resistance Training (SMART) study-resistance training and/or cognitive training in mild cognitive impairment: a randomized, double-blind, double-sham controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 15(12), 873–880. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2014.09.010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    Firth, J., Stubbs, B., Vancampfort, D., Schuch, F., Lagopoulos, J., Rosenbaum, S., & Ward, P. B. (2018). Effect of aerobic exercise on hippocampal volume in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroimage, 166, 230–238.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    Fisher, Z., Tipton, E., & Zhipeng, H. (2017). robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression. Rpackage version 2.0. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=robumeta
  25. ↵
    Fissler, P., Kuster, O., Schlee, W., & Kolassa, I. T. (2013). Novelty interventions to enhance broad cognitive abilities and prevent dementia: synergistic approaches for the facilitation of positive plastic change. Progress in Brain Research, 207, 403–434. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63327-9.00017-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    Fraser, S. A., Li, K. Z.-H., Berryman, N., Desjardins-Crépeau, L., Lussier, M., Vadaga, K., … Bosquet, L. (2017). Does combined physical and cognitive training improve dual-task balance and gait outcomes in sedentary older adults? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 688.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Gavelin, H. M., Lampit, A., Hallock, H., Sabates, J., & Bahar-Fuchs, A. (2020). Cognition-Oriented Treatments for Older Adults: a Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews. Neuropsychology Review, 30(2), 167–193. doi:10.1007/s11065-020-09434-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Gheysen, F., Poppe, L., DeSmet, A., Swinnen, S., Cardon, G., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., … Fias, W. (2018). Physical activity to improve cognition in older adults: can physical activity programs enriched with cognitive challenges enhance the effects? A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 15(63). doi:10.1186/s12966-018-0697-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    Gschwind, Y. J., Eichberg, S., Ejupi, A., de Rosario, H., Kroll, M., Marston, H. R., … Delbaere, K. (2015). ICT-based system to predict and prevent falls (iStoppFalls): results from an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 12, 10. doi: 10.1186/s11556-015-0155-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    Hagovska, M., & Nagyova, I. (2017). The transfer of skills from cognitive and physical training to activities of daily living: a randomised controlled study. European journal of ageing, 14(2), 133–142.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    Hagovska, M., & Olekszyova, Z. (2016). Impact of the combination of cognitive and balance training on gait, fear and risk of falling and quality of life in seniors with mild cognitive impairment. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 16(9), 1043–1050. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12593
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    Hagovska, M., Takáč, P., & Dzvonik, O. (2016). Effect of a combining cognitive and balanced training on the cognitive, postural and functional status of seniors with a mild cognitive deficit in a randomized, controlled trial. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 52(1), 101–109.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods, 1(1), 39–65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Heffernan, M., Andrews, G., Fiatarone Singh, M. A., Valenzuela, M., Anstey, K. J., Maeder, A. J., … Brodaty, H. (2019). Maintain Your Brain: Protocol of a 3-Year Randomized Controlled Trial of a Personalized Multi-Modal Digital Health Intervention to Prevent Cognitive Decline Among Community Dwelling 55 to 77 Year Olds. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 70(s1), S221-S237. doi:10.3233/JAD-180572
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    Hill, N. T., Mowszowski, L., Naismith, S. L., Chadwick, V. L., Valenzuela, M., & Lampit, A. (2017). Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(4), 329–340. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16030360
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Hiyamizu, M., Morioka, S., Shomoto, K., & Shimada, T. (2012). Effects of dual task balance training on dual task performance in elderly people: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(1), 58–67. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215510394222
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Htut, T. Z. C., Hiengkaew, V., Jalayondeja, C., & Vongsirinavarat, M. (2018). Effects of physical, virtual reality-based, and brain exercise on physical, cognition, and preference in older persons: a randomized controlled trial. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 15, 10. doi: 10.1186/s11556-018-0199-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    Hughes, T. F., Flatt, J. D., Fu, B., Butters, M. A., Chang, C. C. H., & Ganguli, M. (2014). Interactive video gaming compared with health education in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A feasibility study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29(9), 890–898. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.4075
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., … Moher, D. (2015). The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(11), 777–784. doi:10.7326/M14-2385
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    Johnson, D., Deterding, S., Kuhn, K. A., Staneva, A., Stoyanov, S., & Hides, L. (2016). Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interventions, 6, 89–106. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2016.10.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    Karssemeijer, E. G. A., Aaronson, J. A., Bossers, W. J., Smits, T., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., & Kessels, R. P. C. (2017). Positive effects of combined cognitive and physical exercise training on cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 40, 75–83. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2017.09.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    Karssemeijer, E. G. A., Aaronson, J. A., Bossers, W. J. R., Donders, R., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., & Kessels, R. P. C. (2019). The quest for synergy between physical exercise and cognitive stimulation via exergaming in people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial. Alzheimers Research & Therapy, 11(1), 3. doi:10.1186/s13195-018-0454-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    Kempermann, G., Fabel, K., Ehninger, D., Babu, H., Leal-Galicia, P., Garthe, A., & Wolf, S. A. (2010). Why and how physical activity promotes experience-induced brain plasticity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, 189. doi:10.3389/fnins.2010.00189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Kitazawa, K., Showa, S., Hiraoka, A., Fushiki, Y., Sakauchi, H., & Mori, M. (2015). Effect of a dual-task net-step exercise on cognitive and gait function in older adults. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 38(3), 133–140. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000029
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    Kivipelto, M., Mangialasche, F., Snyder, H. M., Allegri, R., Andrieu, S., Arai, H., … Carrillo, M. C. (2020). World-Wide FINGERS Network: A global approach to risk reduction and prevention of dementia. Alzheimers Dement. doi:10.1002/alz.12123
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    Knaepen, K., Goekint, M., Heyman, E. M., & Meeusen, R. (2010). Neuroplasticity - exercise-induced response of peripheral brain-derived neurotrophic factor: a systematic review of experimental studies in human subjects. Sports Medicine, 40(9), 765–801. doi:10.2165/11534530-000000000-00000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    Laatar, R., Kachouri, H., Borji, R., Rebai, H., & Sahli, S. (2018). Combined physical-cognitive training enhances postural performances during daily life tasks in older adults. Experimental Gerontology, 107, 91–97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2017.09.004
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    Lampit, A., Hallock, H., & Valenzuela, M. (2014). Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS Medicine, 11(11), e1001756. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Legault, C., Jennings, J. M., Katula, J. A., Dagenbach, D., Gaussoin, S. A., Sink, K. M., … Group, S.-P. S. (2011). Designing clinical trials for assessing the effects of cognitive training and physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes: the Seniors Health and Activity Research Program Pilot (SHARP-P) study, a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics, 11, 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-11-27
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    Leon, J., Urena, A., Bolanos, M. J., Bilbao, A., & Ona, A. (2015). A combination of physical and cognitive exercise improves reaction time in persons 61-84 years old. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 23(1), 72–77. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/japa.2012-0313
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    Leung, I. H., Walton, C. C., Hallock, H., Lewis, S. J., Valenzuela, M., & Lampit, A. (2015). Cognitive training in Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology, 85(21), 1843–1851. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000002145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    Linde, K., & Alfermann, D. (2014). Single versus combined cognitive and physical activity effects on fluid cognitive abilities of healthy older adults: a 4-month randomized controlled trial with follow-up. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 22(3), 302–313. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/JAPA.2012-0149
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    Livingston, G., Sommerlad, A., Orgeta, V., Costafreda, S. G., Huntley, J., Ames, D., … Mukadam, N. (2017). Dementia prevention, intervention, and care. Lancet, 390(10113), 2673–2734. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31363-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Lustig, C., Shah, P., Seidler, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009). Aging, training, and the brain: a review and future directions. Neuropsychology Review, 19(4), 504–522. doi:10.1007/s11065-009-9119-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    Maffei, L., Picano, E., Andreassi, M., Angelucci, A., Baldacci, F., Baroncelli, L., … Biagi, L. (2017). Randomized trial on the effects of a combined physical/cognitive training in aged MCI subjects: the Train the Brain study. Scientific Reports, 7, 39471.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    Maillot, P., Perrot, A., & Hartley, A. (2012). Effects of interactive physical-activity video-game training on physical and cognitive function in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 589–600. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    Mavros, Y., Gates, N., Wilson, G. C., Jain, N., Meiklejohn, J., Brodaty, H., … Fiatarone Singh, M. A. (2017). Mediation of cognitive function improvements by strength gains after resistance training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: outcomes of the study of mental and resistance training. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 65(3), 550–559. doi:10.1111/jgs.14542
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    McDaniel, M. A., Binder, E. F., Bugg, J. M., Waldum, E. R., Dufault, C., Meyer, A., … Kudelka, C. (2014). Effects of cognitive training with and without aerobic exercise on cognitively demanding everyday activities. Psychology and Aging, 29(3), 717–730. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037363
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    McEwen, S. C., Siddarth, P., Abedelsater, B., Kim, Y., Mui, W., Wu, P., … Merrill, D. A. (2018). Simultaneous Aerobic Exercise and Memory Training Program in Older Adults with Subjective Memory Impairments. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 62(2), 795–806. doi:10.3233/JAD-170846
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    Middleton, L. E., Ventura, M. I., Santos-Modesitt, W., Poelke, G., Yaffe, K., & Barnes, D. E. (2018). The Mental Activity and eXercise (MAX) trial: effects on physical function and quality of life among older adults with cognitive complaints. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 64, 161–166.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    Mrakic-Sposta, S., Di Santo, S. G., Franchini, F., Arlati, S., Zangiacomi, A., Greci, L., … Vezzoli, A. (2018). Effects of combined physical and cognitive virtual reality-based training on cognitive impairment and oxidative stress in MCI patients: a pilot study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10, 282. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00282
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    Ngandu, T., Lehtisalo, J., Solomon, A., Levalahti, E., Ahtiluoto, S., Antikainen, R., … Kivipelto, M. (2015). A 2 year multidomain intervention of diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk monitoring versus control to prevent cognitive decline in at-risk elderly people (FINGER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 355(9984), 2255–2263. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60461-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    Nikolakopoulou, A., Higgins, J. P. T., Papakonstantinou, T., Chaimani, A., Del Giovane, C., Egger, M., & Salanti, G. (2020). CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 17(4), e1003082. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003082
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    Nilsson, J., Ekblom, O., Ekblom, M., Lebedev, A., Tarassova, O., Moberg, M., & Lovden, M. (2020). Acute increases in brain-derived neurotrophic factor in plasma following physical exercise relates to subsequent learning in older adults. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4395. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60124-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. ↵
    Nishiguchi, S., Yamada, M., Tanigawa, T., Sekiyama, K., Kawagoe, T., Suzuki, M., … Tsuboyama, T. (2015). A 12-week physical and cognitive exercise program can improve cognitive function and neural efficiency in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 63(7), 1355–1363. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13481
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. ↵
    Norouzi, E., Vaezmosavi, M., Gerber, M., Puhse, U., & Brand, S. (2019). Dual-task training on cognition and resistance training improved both balance and working memory in older people. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 47(4), 471–478. doi:10.1080/00913847.2019.1623996
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    Northey, J. M., Cherbuin, N., Pumpa, K. L., Smee, D. J., & Rattray, B. (2018). Exercise interventions for cognitive function in adults older than 50: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Brittish Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(3), 154–160. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096587
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    Papakonstantinou, T., Nikolakopoulou, A., Higgins, J. P., Egger, M., & Salanti, G. (2020). CINeMA: Software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(1), e1080.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    Park, H., Park, J. H., Na, H. R., Hiroyuki, S., Kim, G. M., Jung, M. K., … Park, K. W. (2019). Combined intervention of physical activity, aerobic exercise, and cognitive exercise intervention to prevent cognitive decline for patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled clinical study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(7), 940. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/icm8070940
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    Petersen, R. C., Lopez, O., Armstrong, M. J., Getchius, T. S. D., Ganguli, M., Gloss, D., … Rae-Grant, A. (2018). Practice guideline update summary: Mild cognitive impairment. Neurology, 90(3), 126–135. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000004826
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    Pompeu, J. E., Mendes, F. A., Silva, K. G., Lobo, A. M., Oliveira Tde, P., Zomignani, A. P., & Piemonte, M. E. (2012). Effect of Nintendo Wii-based motor and cognitive training on activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomised clinical trial. Physiotherapy, 98(3), 196–204. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2012.06.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  73. ↵
    Pustejovsky, J. (2020). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections. R package version 0.4.2. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clubSandwich
  74. ↵
    Rahe, J., Becker, J., Fink, G. R., Kessler, J., Kukolja, J., Rahn, A., … Kalbe, E. (2015). Cognitive training with and without additional physical activity in healthy older adults: Cognitive effects, neurobiological mechanisms, and prediction of training success. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7, 187. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00187
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    Reigal, R., & Mendo, A. H. (2014). Efectos de un programa cognitivo-motriz sobre la función ejecutiva en una muestra de personas mayores. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 10(37), 206–220.
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    Rezola-Pardo, C., Arrieta, H., Gil, S. M., Zarrazquin, I., Yanguas, J. J., Lopez, M. A., … Rodriguez-Larrad, A. (2019). Comparison between multicomponent and simultaneous dual-task exercise interventions in long-term nursing home residents: the Ageing-ONDUAL-TASK randomized controlled study. Age and Ageing, 48(6), 817–823. doi:10.1093/ageing/afz105
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P., & Deeks, J. J. (2011). Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ, 342, d549. doi:10.1136/bmj.d549
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    Romera-Liebana, L., Orfila, F., Segura, J. M., Real, J., Fabra, M. L., Moller, M., … Foz, G. (2018). Effects of a primary care-based multifactorial intervention on physical and cognitive function in frail, elderly individuals: a randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 73(12), 1688–1674. doi:10.1093/gerona/glx259
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. ↵
    Rücker, G., Krahn, U., König, J., Efthimiou, O., & Schwarzer, G. (2020). netmeta: Network meta-analysis using frequentist methods. R package. Version 1.2-1. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=netmeta
  80. ↵
    Rucker, G., Petropoulou, M., & Schwarzer, G. (2020). Network meta-analysis of multicomponent interventions. Biom J, 62(3), 808–821. doi:10.1002/bimj.201800167
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    Rucker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2015). Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15, 58. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    Sala, G., Tatlidil, K. S., & Gobet, F. (2019). Still no evidence that exergames improve cognitive ability: A commentary on Stanmore et al. (2017). Neuroscience andBiobehavioral Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    Salanti, G. (2012). Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(2), 80–97. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    Schattin, A., Arner, R., Gennaro, F., & de Bruin, E. D. (2016). Adaptations of prefrontal brain activity, executive functions, and gait in healthy elderly following exergame and balance training: A randomized-controlled study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 8, 278. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00278
    OpenUrl
  85. ↵
    Schoene, D., Lord, S. R., Delbaere, K., Severino, C., Davies, T. A., & Smith, S. T. (2013). A randomized controlled pilot study of home-based step training in older people using videogame technology. PloS One, 8(3), e57734. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057734
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    Schoene, D., Valenzuela, T., Toson, B., Delbaere, K., Severino, C., Garcia, J., … Lord, S. R. (2015). Interactive cognitive-motor step training improves cognitive risk factors of falling in older adults - a randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 10(12), e0145161. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145161
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    Shatil, E. (2013). Does combined cognitive training and physical activity training enhance cognitive abilities more than either alone? A four-condition randomized controlled trial among healthy older adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 5, 8. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2013.00008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    Shimada, H., Makizako, H., Doi, T., Park, H., Tsutsumimoto, K., Verghese, J., & Suzuki, T. (2018). Effects of combined physical and cognitive exercises on cognition and mobility in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 19(7), 584–591. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.09.019
    OpenUrlPubMed
  89. ↵
    Song, J., Paul, S. S., Caetano, M. J. D., Smith, S., Dibble, L. E., Love, R., … Allen, N. E. (2018). Home-based step training using videogame technology in people with Parkinson’s disease: A single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 32(3), 299–311. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215517721593
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    Stanmore, E., Mavroeidi, A., de Jong, L. D., Skelton, D. A., Sutton, C. J., Benedetto, V., … Todd, C. (2019). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strength and balance Exergames to reduce falls risk for people aged 55 years and older in UK assisted living facilities: a multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 49. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1278-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. ↵
    Stanmore, E., Stubbs, B., Vancampfort, D., de Bruin, E. D., & Firth, J. (2017). The effect of active video games on cognitive functioning in clinical and non-clinical populations: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neuroscience andBiobehavioral Reviews, 78, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.011
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. ↵
    Sterne, J. A., Savovic, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2019). RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, 14898. doi:10.1136/bmj.14898
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    Sterne, J. A., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., … Higgins, J. P. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 343, d4002. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  94. ↵
    Ten Brinke, L. F., Best, J. R., Chan, J. L. C., Ghag, C., Erickson, K. I., Handy, T. C., & Liu-Ambrose, T. (2019). The effects of computerized cognitive training with and without physical exercise on cognitive function in older adults: an 8-week randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology. Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 04(4), 755–763. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glz115
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    van Balkom, T. D., van den Heuvel, O. A., Berendse, H. W., van der Werf, Y. D., & Vriend, C. (2020). The Effects of Cognitive Training on Brain Network Activity and Connectivity in Aging and Neurodegenerative Diseases: a Systematic Review. Neuropsychology Review, 30(2), 267–286. doi:10.1007/s11065-020-09440-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. ↵
    van het Reve, E., & de Bruin, E. D. (2014). Strength-balance supplemented with computerized cognitive training to improve dual task gait and divided attention in older adults: a multicenter randomized-controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics, 14, 134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-134
    OpenUrl
  97. ↵
    Webb, S. L., Loh, V., Lampit, A., Bateman, J. E., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Computerized Cognitive Training on Executive Functions: a Cross-Disciplinary Taxonomy for Classifying Outcome Cognitive Factors. Neuropsychology Review, 28(2), 232–250. doi:10.1007/s11065-018-9374-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    World Health Organization and Alzehimer’s Disease International. (2012). Dementia: a public health priority. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: http://www.who.int/mentalhealth/publications/dementiareport2012
  99. ↵
    Yang, C., Moore, A., Mpofu, E., Dorstyn, D., Li, Q., & Yin, C. (2019). Effectiveness of combined cognitive and physical interventions to enhance functioning in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Gerontologist. doi:10.1093/geront/gnz149
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. ↵
    Zhu, X. Y., Yin, S. F., Lang, M. J., He, R. Q., & Li, J. (2016). The more the better? A meta-analysis on effects of combined cognitive and physical intervention on cognition in healthy older adults. Ageing Research Reviews, 31, 67–79. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2016.07.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 11, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Hanna Malmberg Gavelin, Christopher Dong, Ruth Minkov, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, Kathryn A Ellis, Nicola T Lautenschlager, Maddison L Mellow, Alexandra T Wade, Ashleigh E Smith, Carsten Finke, Stephan Krohn, Amit Lampit
medRxiv 2020.08.08.20170654; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.08.20170654
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Hanna Malmberg Gavelin, Christopher Dong, Ruth Minkov, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, Kathryn A Ellis, Nicola T Lautenschlager, Maddison L Mellow, Alexandra T Wade, Ashleigh E Smith, Carsten Finke, Stephan Krohn, Amit Lampit
medRxiv 2020.08.08.20170654; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.08.20170654

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (180)
  • Allergy and Immunology (435)
  • Anesthesia (99)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (949)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (178)
  • Dermatology (111)
  • Emergency Medicine (260)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (423)
  • Epidemiology (9017)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (422)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1963)
  • Geriatric Medicine (191)
  • Health Economics (405)
  • Health Informatics (1332)
  • Health Policy (662)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (522)
  • Hematology (212)
  • HIV/AIDS (420)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10831)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (576)
  • Medical Education (200)
  • Medical Ethics (54)
  • Nephrology (223)
  • Neurology (1842)
  • Nursing (110)
  • Nutrition (274)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (357)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (470)
  • Oncology (1006)
  • Ophthalmology (299)
  • Orthopedics (111)
  • Otolaryngology (184)
  • Pain Medicine (126)
  • Palliative Medicine (45)
  • Pathology (267)
  • Pediatrics (583)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (276)
  • Primary Care Research (234)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1910)
  • Public and Global Health (4137)
  • Radiology and Imaging (678)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (370)
  • Respiratory Medicine (551)
  • Rheumatology (226)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (191)
  • Sports Medicine (178)
  • Surgery (207)
  • Toxicology (39)
  • Transplantation (110)
  • Urology (82)