| Literature DB >> 36231532 |
Gloria Cecilia Vega-Ávila1, Diego Fernando Afanador-Restrepo1,2, Yulieth Rivas-Campo3, Patricia Alexandra García-Garro1, Fidel Hita-Contreras4, María Del Carmen Carcelén-Fraile4, Yolanda Castellote-Caballero4, Agustín Aibar-Almazán4.
Abstract
Growing evidence suggests that rhythmic physical activity (PA) improves cognitive function in both persons with normal brain aging and with cognitive impairment. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of rhythmic PA over global cognition in older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment. Different keywords related to the topic and Boolean operators were used in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases. A total of 11 articles that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed; all of them assessed global cognition using either the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) or the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Five studies showed beneficial effects over global cognition. All studies had at least one experimental group with rhythmic training, and the interventions evidenced a great diversity of rhythmic stimuli, as well as a varied frequency, duration and type of activities. The heterogeneity of the protocols could be the reason for the mixed findings. Future studies with more precise exercise prescriptions are needed to establish whether rhythmic PA has beneficial effects on global cognition.Entities:
Keywords: cognition; dance; elderly; physical exercise; randomized controlled trials; rhythmic
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231532 PMCID: PMC9566681 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Methodological quality of the articles included.
| Items | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autor | |||||||||||||
| Bisbe et al. 2020 [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | |
| Zhu et al. 2022 [ | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 6 | |
| Qi et al. 2019 [ | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 5 | |
| Hars et al. 2014 [ | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | 6 | |
| Kropacova et al. 2019 [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | 6 | |
| Franco et al. 2020 [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | |
| Lazarou et al. 2017 [ | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | |
| Kattenstroth et al. 2013 [ | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | 3 | |
| Esmail et al. 2020 [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | |
| Hackney et al. 2015 [ | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 4 | |
| Chang et al. 2021 [ | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | 6 | |
Items: 1 = eligibility criteria; 2 = random allocation; 3 = concealed allocation; 4 = baseline comparability; 5 = blind subjects; 6 = blind therapists; 7 = blind assessors;8 = adequate follow-up; 9 = intention-to-treat analysis; 10 = between-group comparisons; 11 = point estimates and variability; Y = Yes; N = No. The eligibility criteria item does not contribute to the total score.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Author (Year of Publication) | Sample Size | Sex (% Female) | Age Mean (SD) | Level of Cognition and Screening Tool | Intervention Group: Type, Duration, Frequency, | Control Group: | Intervention Duration and | Measuring Instrument | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bisbe et al. 2020 [ | 48.39 | 75.08 ± 5.38 | MMSE ≥ 24 ** | T: Choreographed aerobic dances | Different motor abilities, such as strength, endurance, flexibility, balance, coordination and gait were trained, according to physiotherapeutic common practices | 12 weeks | MMSE | No significant differences were found within-group changes after the intervention. After 12 weeks | |
| Zhu et al. 2022 [ | 75.93 | 70.66 ± 7.18 | MMSE ≥ 25 * | T: Aerobic dance | Both the intervention and control groups received a health education program (in the form of a 120-min-long lecture) after inclusion in this study. | 3 months | MMSE MoCA | 3 months of aerobic dance improves cognitive function. There was a correlation between the intervention and MoCA, as the intervention group (β [95% CI]: 0.280 [0.159, 2.361], | |
| Qi et al. 2019 [ | 71.88 | 69.85 ± 7.15 | MMSE: 25–30; MoCA ≤ 26 ** | T: Aerobic dance | Received usual care | 3 months | MMSE MoCA | Within-group differences demonstrated that the scores of MMSE and MoCA were significantly increased in the EG ( | |
| Hars et al. 2014 [ | 96.27 | IG = 75 ± 8 | MMSE * | T: Structured music-based multitask exercise classes (Jaques-Dalcroze eurhythmics movement method) | The control group maintained their usual physical and social habits | 6 months | MMSE | Within-group analysis in MMSE scores indicated an increase in the intervention group from baseline to Month 6 (from 25.9 ± 2.7 to 26.9 ± 2.1; | |
| Kropacova et al. 2019 [ | 76.77 | IG: 69.16 ± 5.36 | MoCA < 26 points *** | T: Dance movement intervention. | Life as usual | 6 months | MoCA | No statistically significant changes for MoCA results between groups differences at the baseline ( | |
| Franco et al. 2020 [ | 91.55 | 69 ± 6.6 | MMSE ≥ 24 * | T: Senior dance | 1 h single educational class on strategies to prevent falls | 3 months | MoCA | No significant differences between intervention and control groups at 12-week follow-up in cognitive function measured by MoCA (β [95% CI]: 0.6 [−0.7, 1.8]) | |
| Lazarou et al. 2017 [ | 78.29 | 66.8 ± 10.1 | Stage 3 of the disease according to GDS ** | T: International Ballroom Dancing. | Life as usual | 10 months (40 weeks) | MMSE. MoCA | Significant improvements in MMSE after 10 months of dance intervention whereas no improvements were found for the control group. Significant differences between dance intervention and control groups ( | |
| Kattenstroth et al. 2013 [ | 68.57 | 68.60 ± 1.45 | MMSE: 27 to 30 * | T: Special dance program for seniors (Agilando™). D: 60 min F: 1 times/week | Life as usual | 6 months | RBANS | After 6 months of dance intervention, significant improvements in RBANS within the intervention group ( | |
| Esmail et al. 2020 [ | 75.61 | 67.48 ± 5.37 | MMSE > 24 * | T: Dance movement training | Life as usual | 3 months | MoCA | There was no time effect ( | |
| Hackney et al. 2015 [ | 71.62 | IG = 82.3 ± 8.8; | MoCA; No history of neurodegenerative | T: Tango | 90 min of health education classes, for 12 weeks, 4 times per week (20 sessions) | 3 months | MoCA | There were no significant differences between the groups (( | |
| Chang et al. 2021 [ | 100 | EG: 76.56 ± 3.60CG: 75.94 ± 3.61 | MoCa < 26 ** | T: Square dance exercise. | Life as usual | 18 Weeks | MoCA | There were significant differences for week 9 and 18 in MoCA ( |
IG: Intervention Group; CG: Control Group; MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; GDS: Global Deterioration Scale; RBANS: Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status; T: Type; D: Duration; F: Frequency; I: Intensity; HRmax: Maximum Heart Rate; MAP: Maximal Aerobic Power; Pts: Points; * Without mild cognitive impairment. ** With mild cognitive impairment. *** With and without mild cognitive impairment.
Tests and cognitive domains assessment.
| Cognitive Domain | Tests |
|---|---|
| Overall cognitive level | Montreal cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [ |
| Memory | Taylor figure test recall 3 min after copy (TCF 1) [ |
| Attention and/or concentration | Forward Digit Span Task (DST) Chinese version [ |
| Executive function | Backward Digit Span Task (DST) Chinese version [ |
| Visuospatial function | Judgment of line orientation test (JLO) [ |
| Language | Letter Verbal Fluency (LVF) [ |
| Processing speed | Trail Making Test parts A (TMT A) [ |