| DMT compared to waiting list for dementia (end of intervention) |
| Patient or population: dementia or mild neurocognitive disorder
Setting: Outpatient department and community centres
Intervention: DMT
Comparison: waiting list |
| Neuropsychiatric symptoms
assessed with: 12‐Item Neuropsychiatric Inventory
Scale from: 0 to 36
follow‐up: mean 3 months | The mean neuropsychiatric symptoms was 2.2 | MD 0.3 higher
(0.96 lower to 1.56 higher) | ‐ | 137
(1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b | There may be little or no effect of DMT on neuropsychiatric symptoms. Higher scores indicate greater behavioural challenges. |
| Cognitive outcome
assessed with: the Fuld object memory evaluation (total retrieval and delayed recall); semantic retrieval (verbal fluency); Digit Span test (forward and backward digit span); Trail‐Making test
follow‐up: mean 3 months | The seven outcome variables on cognitive functioning did not show any statistically significant effects immediately after the DMT intervention in comparison with the waiting‐list control group. | | 137
(1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b | There may be little or no effect of DMT on cognitive functioning. |
| Depression
assessed with: Brief Geriatric Depression Scale
Scale from: 0 to 4
follow‐up: mean 3 months | The mean depression was 1.2 | MD 0.6 lower
(0.96 lower to 0.24 lower) | ‐ | 137
(1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b | There may be little or no effect of DMT on depression. Higher scores indicate increased severity of depression. |
| Social and occupational functioning
assessed with: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale
Scale from: 0 to 18
follow‐up: mean 3 months | The mean social and occupational functioning was 12.6 | MD 0.6 higher
(1.22 lower to 2.42 higher) | ‐ | 137
(1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b,c | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of DMT on social and occupational functioning. Higher scores suggest better functioning. |
| Dropout
follow‐up: mean 3 months | 88 per 1000 | 14 per 1000
(2 to 112) | OR 0.15
(0.02 to 1.30) | 137
(1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa,b,c,d | The evidence is very uncertain on whether dropouts were due to the type of intervention participants attended. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; OR: odds ratio |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. |
| See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_434553657932634084. |
