{"title":"Effectiveness of Olfactory Training for Cognition and Depressive Symptoms in Middle-Aged and Elderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Kai Chen, Sha Yu, Xiao Jiang","doi":"10.1111/psyg.70093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Olfactory training (OT) has been proposed as a non-pharmacological intervention to improve cognitive functions and depressive symptomatology, but evidence remains fragmented.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OT versus control in middle-aged and elderly adults. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase) were systematically searched from database inception through June 2025. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using fixed- or random-effects models as appropriate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool; sensitivity analyses and funnel plots evaluated robustness and small-study bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six RCTs with a total of 302 participants were included. The OT did not significantly improve global cognition (SMD = 0.65; 95% CI -0.37 to 1.67) or verbal fluency (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.34). However, OT produced a modest benefit in memory (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI 0.06-0.70) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.07). Risk of bias was generally low to unclear, with performance and allocation concealment most frequently at high or unclear risk. Leave-one-out analyses showed that memory and depressive symptomatology effects were sensitive to the inclusion of individual studies, whereas global cognition and fluency findings remained stable. Funnel plots suggested possible publication bias for global cognition but not for other domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OT may have potential benefit to memory and depressive symptomatology in middle-aged and elderly adults, while it still needs further high-quality, large-scale investigations to confirm the effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":74597,"journal":{"name":"Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society","volume":"25 5","pages":"e70093"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.70093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Olfactory training (OT) has been proposed as a non-pharmacological intervention to improve cognitive functions and depressive symptomatology, but evidence remains fragmented.
Methods: In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OT versus control in middle-aged and elderly adults. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase) were systematically searched from database inception through June 2025. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using fixed- or random-effects models as appropriate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool; sensitivity analyses and funnel plots evaluated robustness and small-study bias.
Results: Six RCTs with a total of 302 participants were included. The OT did not significantly improve global cognition (SMD = 0.65; 95% CI -0.37 to 1.67) or verbal fluency (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.34). However, OT produced a modest benefit in memory (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI 0.06-0.70) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.07). Risk of bias was generally low to unclear, with performance and allocation concealment most frequently at high or unclear risk. Leave-one-out analyses showed that memory and depressive symptomatology effects were sensitive to the inclusion of individual studies, whereas global cognition and fluency findings remained stable. Funnel plots suggested possible publication bias for global cognition but not for other domains.
Conclusions: OT may have potential benefit to memory and depressive symptomatology in middle-aged and elderly adults, while it still needs further high-quality, large-scale investigations to confirm the effects.
背景:嗅觉训练(OT)已被提议作为一种非药物干预措施来改善认知功能和抑郁症状,但证据仍然不完整。方法:在本研究中,我们对中老年患者进行了比较OT和对照组的随机对照试验(rct)的系统回顾和荟萃分析。四个数据库(PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase)从数据库建立到2025年6月被系统检索。95%置信区间(ci)的标准化平均差异(SMDs)根据需要使用固定或随机效应模型进行汇总。采用Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险;敏感性分析和漏斗图评估了稳健性和小研究偏倚。结果:共纳入6项随机对照试验,共302名受试者。OT并没有显著改善整体认知(SMD = 0.65; 95% CI -0.37至1.67)或语言流畅性(SMD = 0.06; 95% CI -0.22至0.34)。然而,OT在记忆(SMD = 0.38; 95% CI 0.06-0.70)和抑郁症状(SMD = -0.35; 95% CI -0.62 - -0.07)方面产生了适度的益处。偏倚风险一般为低至不明确,表现和分配隐瞒最常处于高或不明确风险。留一分析表明,记忆和抑郁症状学的影响对纳入个别研究很敏感,而整体认知和流利性的研究结果保持稳定。漏斗图表明全球认知可能存在发表偏倚,但其他领域没有。结论:OT可能对中老年人的记忆和抑郁症状有潜在的益处,但仍需要进一步高质量、大规模的研究来证实其效果。