Most (73%) studies were conducted in specialized dementia care units either within a nursing home (n = 4), connected to another facility (n = 2), or standing independently (n = 4). Two studies assessed people with dementia living alongside elderly people without dementia,16 and 24 but where this happens only the data Enzalutamide relating to residents with dementia are reported. Eight studies included participants with a formal diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer disease; in 1 study a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease
was assumed based on the setting (a “high-functioning dementia unit”)15 and 2 studies used scores on the Mini Mental State Examination to assess eligibility, using thresholds of less than 1724 or 23.21 Despite looking for all BPSD-related symptoms, studies PARP activity did not tend to report on the full range and often used only observation to record the outcomes. Six studies used the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI),25 or a version of it, to measure aggressive and agitated behaviors. The remaining studies assessed behavior, communication, functional independence, and psychological outcomes using validated measures, such as the Communication Outcome Measure of Functional Independence (COMFI scale),17 the Arizona Battery of Communication Disorders in
Dementia (ABCD),26 the Gottfries-Brane-Steen Scale (GBS),27 or observations of events or behaviors.14, 15, 17 and 20 Most studies (n = 9) described outcome data and accounted for all participants (Table 2). However, power calculations Baricitinib were not reported for any of the studies and the
blinding of participants or of the outcome assessment was not possible for these studies. Eligibility criteria were described in only half the studies, compliance with the intervention was rarely reported, and the validity and reliability of data collection tools was rarely discussed even though in most circumstances the tools had known validity and reliability. Reassuringly, few studies appeared to show any selectivity in reporting their outcomes. In general, the standard of reporting was too poor to make an informed judgment on the quality of the study; however, 2 studies20 and 24 stand out as being better-quality studies according to their reporting, as they met more of the appropriate quality appraisal criteria. Seven studies evaluated music interventions during the mealtime, 2 studies evaluated changes to the dining environment, such as lighting and table setting, 1 study evaluated a food service intervention, and 1 evaluated a group conversation intervention. In all these studies, some form of music was played during the main meal of the day (lunch or evening meal). In 1 study, music was played during both lunch time and the evening meal.21 The meals were delivered in a communal dining room. Most studies used relaxing music with the exception of 1 study that investigated the use of different types of music (relaxing, 20s/30s, and pop).