Gender-specific design and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions against cognitive decline and dementia-protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is a public health priority with projected increases in the number of people living with dementia worldwide. Prevention constitutes a promising strategy to counter the dementia epidemic, and an increasing number of lifestyle interventions has been launched aiming at reducing risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Gender differences regarding various modifiable risk factors for dementia have been reported, however, evidence on gender-specific design and effectiveness of lifestyle trials is lacking. Therefore, we aim to systematically review evidence on gender-specific design and effectiveness of trials targeting cognitive decline and dementia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases MEDLINE (PubMed interface), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ALOIS will be searched for eligible studies using a predefined strategy, complemented by searches in clinical trials registers and Google for grey literature. Studies assessing cognitive function (overall measure or specific subdomains) as outcome in dementia-free adults will be included, with analyses stratified by level of cognitive functioning at baseline: a) cognitively healthy b) subjective cognitive decline 3) mild cognitive impairment. Two reviewers will independently evaluate eligible studies, extract data and determine methodological quality using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)-criteria. If sufficient data with regards to quality and quantity are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required as no primary data will be collected. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021235281.

Introduction

Currently, over 50 million people are living with dementia worldwide, with projected increases to over 150 million in 2050 [1]. Dementia inflicts a tremendous burden on individuals and their relatives who often act as caregivers [2]. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the global costs of dementia to be 818 billion US-dollars, with approximately 85% of the costs being related to family- and social care. Moreover, dementia is among the leading causes of disability in older age, accounting for 11.9% of years lived with disability due to non-communicable diseases, making it a public health priority [3, 4].

In the absence of curative treatment, the pivotal role of identifying modifiable risk factors and designing preventive strategies for dementia has been highlighted, and knowledge on such factors is evolving rapidly [4, 5]. To date, there is evidence for a variety of potentially modifiable factors increasing risk for dementia: low education in early life, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, obesity, excessive alcohol consumption (>21 units per week) in midlife, diabetes mellitus, depression, physical inactivity, smoking, social isolation, and exposure to air pollution in later life. It is estimated that these risk factors hold responsible for approximately 40% of dementia cases in high-income countries (HIC), with preventive potential in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) being even higher [6]. While the first generation of intervention studies mainly targeted single such risk factors, more recent trials focused on multi-domain interventions, accounting for the multifactorial etiology of dementia [5, 7]. Several multi-domain interventions, first and foremost the FINGER-study (Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability; [8]), have been completed, exhibiting positive effects on cognitive outcomes in subpopulations with increased dementia risk [9-11].

Several gender differences regarding prevalence and presentation of dementia as well as risk factors have been reported. Women’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common type of dementia (up to 80% of all cases), is twice as high as men’s [12]. This is in part due to sex differences in life-expectancy, with age being the single most important risk factor for dementia [13]. On the other hand, while known risk factors for stroke and vascular dementia such as atherosclerosis, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, atrial fibrillation and heart failure are more common in men, evidence suggests that these risk factors disproportionately increase women’s risk for dementia [14, 15]. Depression constitutes another important risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia which is unequally distributed between genders (prevalence women vs. men = 2:1; [16]), with studies reporting up to 70% increased risk for AD in midlife depression [17]. Further, men and women reporting feelings of loneliness are at increased risk for developing dementia. However, while certain studies found stronger associations between loneliness and dementia onset in men [18], others reported no gender differences [19]. Social networks and social participation have further been linked to dementia risk and cognitive functioning in older age: In a large systematic review, social activity and social network size were linked to better cognitive function in late life, irrespective of gender [20]. Widowhood in older age is more common in women since they tend to outlive their husbands [6]. Losing one’s spouse can affect cognitive function, due to changes in social networks and possibly increased depressive symptoms; however, investigations on potential gender differences in the association between spousal loss and cognitive function revealed mixed results [21, 22]. Furthermore, gender differences regarding physical activity, motivation and uptake of being physically active have been reported [23-25]. While low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower dementia risk [26], excessive or at-risk-drinking has been identified as a risk factor for dementia [27]. At-risk drinking has been reported more frequently in males than females across several countries in middle-aged and older adults [27, 28]. Prevalence of smoking has been reported higher in men than in women among middle-aged and elderly populations across Europe [29], with an inverse association between smoking prevalence and level of education observed in both genders [30]. On the other hand, rates of smoking cessation and long-term abstinence from tobacco were found to be lower in female than in male (ex-)smokers [29, 31].

Despite established gender differences regarding risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia, little is known about the consideration of gender in lifestyle trials. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has yet addressed this question. Adequately addressing potential gender differences could support the development of tailored gender-specific interventions against cognitive decline and dementia and increase their effectiveness.

Objectives

Our review aims to systematically assess gender-specific design and effectiveness of lifestyle trials to reduce the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Depending on the number and quality of eligible trials identified through systematic literature search, an additional meta-analysis will be conducted. This protocol outlines the objectives and strategy for the review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [32].

Methods and analysis

Our review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [33]. The planned process of literature search is outlined in . This section describes the process of literature search, selection of studies and management of data.

Eligibility criteria

We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing lifestyle interventions against cognitive decline and dementia, targeting adults with either unimpaired cognitive function, subjective cognitive decline (SCD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. Interventions will need to be targeted at age-related cognitive decline. To be included in the review, studies need to assess one or more outcomes covering cognitive function using validated, standardized instruments at baseline and follow-up. Potential outcomes include either global assessments of cognitive function, as assessed e.g. with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; [34]) or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; [35]), or specific cognitive domains, e.g. memory, language or executive function.

Eligible RCTs apply single- or multi-domain interventions, including one of the following elements or combinations thereof: diet, physical activity, social activity, cognitive activity, depression, hearing ability, management of cardiovascular diseases or diabetes, smoking, alcohol consumption, and/or psychoeducation. No restriction will be made regarding mode of delivery of the intervention, e.g. individual face-to-face administration, internet- or mobile-based interventions or group settings. Articles written in English or German and published in peer-reviewed journals will be considered for inclusion in the systematic review, without restrictions regarding date of publication. We will include RCTs testing interventions against any kind of control condition, e.g. treatment as usual, passive, active or waitlist control.

We will exclude RCTs targeting individuals diagnosed with dementia or focusing on samples with severe pre-existing conditions, e.g. myocardial infarction, cancer, stroke, or psychiatric diseases, e.g. major depression, as these conditions are linked to impaired cognitive function and increasedd risk for cognitive decline and dementia [36]. Further, RCTs addressing post-operative cognitive function will not be eligible for the review. RCTs focusing exclusively on pharmacological interventions or using non-standardized assessments of cognitive function will not be eligible for the review. Only original studies will be included, excluding dissertations, book chapters, editorials or brief communications.

Our review aims to describe how and to what extent identified RCTs address gender in their design and implementation, thereby providing an overview of the current state-of-the-art and pointing out possibilities for optimization with regards to gender-specificity. Since most RCTs conducted to date apply a dichotomous assessment of male or female sex, consideration of a broader spectrum of gender identities in our review might be limited. We will, however, include evidence from populations with non-binary gender identities in our review if reported in identified RCTs. Possible implications of gender roles and attributes will be adequately addressed when interpreting the results. Only RCTs reporting gender-specific results will be considered eligible for the systematic review.

Search strategy

Literature searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index) and ALOIS, a specialized register of studies on dementia and cognitive decline, maintained by the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group. Additional searches will be conducted using Google for grey literature. Moreover, registers of clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, German Clinical Trials Register) will be screened. Finally, we will scan reference lists of recent reviews and meta-analyses on lifestyle interventions against cognitive decline and dementia and reference lists of included trials to identify potentially missed studies.

A combination of a wide range of search terms will be used to build the search string, using combinations of MeSH-terms or other controlled vocabulary (where possible) and key words. The draft for the search strategy to be applied in the respective databases is included in . The process of the literature search and study selection will be summarized using the PRISMA flow diagram.

Data management

We will use Review Manager (RevMan) software package, version 5.4 (provided by The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020), for management of references and data. If sufficient data can be retrieved, meta-analysis will be conducted using Stata 16.0 (SE; StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA).

Selection process

Two reviewers (AZ and FW) will independently screen titles and abstracts of studies identified through literature search to select studies potentially suitable for the systematic review, according to inclusion- and exclusion criteria described above. In case of uncertainty, the respective study will be read in full text by the two review authors. Disagreement regarding suitability of potentially relevant studies will be resolved by consulting a third review author (ML or SR-H). Reasons for exclusion of articles will be provided.

Data collection

Data extraction will be handled independently by two review authors (AZ and FW), using a standardized, pre-piloted extraction form. Reliability of data collection will be assessed in a random sample of included studies. We will extract the following data:

Study description, e. g. first author, year of publication, country

Aim of study

Type of intervention

Sample description, e. g. sample size of intervention- and control group(s), recruitment strategy, intervention design/type, control group, outcomes assessed, type of assessment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, duration of intervention, length of follow-up

Sample characteristics: e. g. mean age, age range, gender distribution

Methods of data collection

Information on dropout, handling of missing data, imputation techniques applied (if applicable)

Information on type of data analysis, i.e. intention-to-treat- or completer-analyses

Methodological aspects: risk of bias, study limitations

Potential discrepancies between reviewers will be resolved through discussion with a third author (ML or SR-H). Missing data will be requested from study authors. If possible, we will extract data from intention-to-treat-analyses, reflecting the initial group assignment of participants. In cases where intention-to-treat-data are unavailable, we will extract results of per-protocol-analyses. Our main outcome will be the standardized mean difference between intervention- and control group at post intervention. If sufficient data from post-intervention follow-up is available, we will assess stability of effects. In cases of multiple follow-up assessments, we will use data from the assessment closer to the mean time interval of follow-up periods.

Quality assessment

Methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies will be assessed by two review authors (AZ and FW) independently, using the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network)-criteria for RCTs [37]. This set of criteria includes information on randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, level of drop-out before study completion and overall-criteria for rating study quality, e.g. directness and certainty of intervention effects. Quality of included studies will be assessed parallel to the process of data extraction. Disagreement between the two review authors will be resolved by discussion, with involvement of a third review author (ML or SR-H) if no consensus can be reached. If necessary, study authors will be contacted to obtain any additional information needed to assess methodological quality of studies.

Data synthesis and presentation

Results of included studies will be reported in narrative synthesis and tables, displaying 1) study characteristics, 2) sample characteristics and 3) overall-results. For each included study, we will provide numbers of male and female participants, gender-specific covariates and gender-specific effects of interventions. Beyond that, we will provide a narrative synthesis of gender aspects of included studies, e.g. consideration of gender in the study design, presentation of results, discussion, conclusion or recommendations, if feasible. If sufficient data is available in terms of quantity and quality, meta-analysis will be conducted, including forest plots and estimation of a pooled overall effect size. Analyses will be conducted separately for men and women, respectively. Funnel plots and I2-statistics will be applied to assess levels of heterogeneity and Egger’s tests will be applied to assess potential bias caused by small sample sizes. Depending on the level of observed heterogeneity, random-, fixed- or mixed-effects meta-analyses will be conducted. Effectiveness of interventions will be assessed using standardized mean group differences, particularly Hedge’s g as effect size. We will conduct meta-regressions with a dummy variable for gender in order to assess differences in effectiveness between men and women. To account for possible effects of age as the single most important risk factor for dementia, we will assess both unadjusted and age-adjusted treatment effects. Narrative synthesis and meta-analyses will be conducted separately for different levels of cognitive function, i.e. 1) cognitively healthy individuals, 2) SCD, 3) MCI.

Discussion

As dementia currently cannot be cured, risk reduction strategies have been highlighted as essential in lowering the burden of disease to counteract the projected dementia epidemic [5]. The planned systematic review will for the first time provide evidence on how gender differences are considered in the design and effectiveness of lifestyle interventions against cognitive decline and dementia. Thereby, we will point out whether potential gender differences are already being taken into account in the design and execution of dementia prevention efforts or whether possibilities for improvement prevail. Knowledge on whether existing intervention efforts have differential effects depending on gender is crucial for the design of future prevention strategies and personalized interventions to preserve cognitive function. Systematically assessing aspects of gender in existing trials could help facilitate the design of future interventions aimed at preserveing cognitive function. By addressing these questions, the results of our review will contribute valuable knowledge on which types of interventions work for men and women, respectively, to prevent risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Adequately taking into account gender differences in dementia risk factors might lead to more targeted efforts and improve the effectiveness of risk reduction strategies against cognitive decline and dementia. This might in turn contribute to preserve cognitive function in ageing populations, and it even has the potential to reduce prevalence of dementia.

Dissemination plan

The results of the review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Further, results will be presented at professional conferences and meetings. Extracted data will be available as supporting information upon completion of the review. The registry in PROSPERO will be updated regularly in the review process.

Amendments

Any type of amendment to the original protocol will be documented, including date of, description of and reason for amendment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

10 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-08933

Gender-specific design and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions against cognitive decline and dementia – Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zuelke,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please ensure that all text references to PRISMA guidelines reflect that these are guidelines for systematic review reporting, not systematic review conduct.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lisa Susan Wieland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

6. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for submitting this protocol on a topic of high interest in the field. The protocol is well written, although it wasn't very clear to me what sex- or gender-specific information the authors are trying to extract from the trials, and how would these information help to improve future interventional study design? What if these information were not reported, will additional effort be made to obtain these data?

Reviewer #2: It is a very well written project with a description of the appropriate methodology to meet the proposed objectives.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

12 Aug 2021

Reviewer 1

„I would like to thank the authors for submitting this protocol on a topic of high interest in the field. The protocol is well written, although it wasn't very clear to me what sex- or gender-specific information the authors are trying to extract from the trials, and how would these information help to improve future interventional study design? What if these information were not reported, will additional effort be made to obtain these data?”

We thank the reviewer for their kind appraisal of our manuscript! The revised manuscript includes additional information on gender-specific information to be reported in the planned systematic review. Please see page 10, lines 242ff:

“For each included study, we will provide numbers of male and female participants, gender-specific covariates and gender-specific effects of interventions. Beyond that, we will provide a narrative synthesis of gender aspects of included studies, e.g. consideration of gender in the study design, presentation of results, discussion, conclusion or recommendations, if feasible.”

Lines 264ff: “Thereby, we will point out whether potential gender differences are already being taken into account in the design and execution of dementia prevention efforts or whether possibilities for improvement prevail. Knowledge on whether existing intervention efforts have differential effects depending on gender is crucial for the design of future prevention strategies and personalized interventions to preserve cognitive function. Systematically assessing aspects of gender in existing trials could help facilitate the design of future interventions aimed at preserveing cognitive function. By addressing these questions, the results of our review will contribute valuable knowledge on which types of interventions work for men and women, respectively, to prevent risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

Reviewer 2

„It is a very well written project with a description of the appropriate methodology to meet the proposed objectives.”

We thank the reviewer for their kind appraisal of our manuscript!

In addition to the requested changes, we updated the information on inclusion and exclusion criteria to be applied in the planned review. In amendment to the original protocol, we will exclude studies focusing on samples with severe pre-existing conditions, e.g. myocardial infarction, cancer, coronary heart disease, history of traumatic brain injury, stroke or psychiatric diseases, e.g. major depressive disorder, as these conditions are linked to impaired cognitive function and increased risk for cognitive decline and dementia. Our systematic review and meta-analyses focusses on the prevention of age-related cognitive decline (see page 6, line 142), whereas many RCTs focusing on subjects with severe pre-existing conditions aim at rehabilitation of cognitive function. We are confident that excluding respective study samples will result in a more clearly defined samples selection.

Please see page 6, lines 139: DELETED: “Our review will include both RCTs investigating healthy older adults and those at-risk for dementia due to underlying medical conditions, e.g. stroke, diabetes or coronary heart disease (not limited to these conditions).”

CHANGES: Page 7, lines 157ff: “We will exclude RCTs targeting individuals diagnosed with dementia or focusing on samples with severe pre-existing conditions, e.g. myocardial infarction, cancer, stroke, or psychiatric diseases, e.g. major depression, as these conditions are linked to impaired cognitive function and increasedd risk for cognitive decline and dementia.”

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

17 Aug 2021

Gender-specific design and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions against cognitive decline and dementia – Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PONE-D-21-08933R1

Dear Dr. Zuelke,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Lisa Susan Wieland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks the authors for the revised version of the protocol, it is a well-written protocol for a potentially impactful study. I look forward to the results.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

20 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-08933R1

Gender-specific design and effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions against cognitive decline and dementia – Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dear Dr. Zuelke:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Lisa Susan Wieland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE