{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["11(4)"],"submitter":["de Andrade Santos FO"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Aim</h4>Alzheimer's disease (AD) is among common cause of dementia. Complementary therapies, such as resistance exercise (RE), have been proposed as an alternative for the treatment of AD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of RE on the cognitive function of AD animal models and their physiological mechanisms.<h4>Methods</h4>This review was submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42019131266) and was done according to PRISMA checklist. Four databases were used in the search: MEDLINE/PUBMED, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We used SYRCLE and CAMAREDES to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality. We calculated the standardized mean difference using 95% confidence intervals and considered the random effects model and p < 0.05 to determine "],"journal":["The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease"],"pagination":["998-1012"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC11266263"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Effectiveness of Resistance Exercise on Cognitive Function in Animal Models of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."],"pmcid":["PMC11266263"],"pubmed_authors":["de Andrade Santos FO","Passos AA","Arida RM","Teixeira-Machado L"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Effectiveness of Resistance Exercise on Cognitive Function in Animal Models of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","description":"<h4>Aim</h4>Alzheimer's disease (AD) is among common cause of dementia. Complementary therapies, such as resistance exercise (RE), have been proposed as an alternative for the treatment of AD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of RE on the cognitive function of AD animal models and their physiological mechanisms.<h4>Methods</h4>This review was submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42019131266) and was done according to PRISMA checklist. Four databases were used in the search: MEDLINE/PUBMED, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We used SYRCLE and CAMAREDES to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality. We calculated the standardized mean difference using 95% confidence intervals and considered the random effects model and p < 0.05 to determine ","dates":{"release":"2024-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2024","modification":"2026-03-27T16:50:37.459Z","creation":"2025-08-31T03:05:06.561Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC11266263","cross_references":{"pubmed":["39044511"],"doi":["10.14283/jpad.2024.75"]}}