The world is undergoing an unprecedented demographic shift. The proportion of adults aged 60 and over is increasing at a faster rate than any other age group (Bloom et al., 2015;Tu et al., 2022). This global aging phenomenon presents profound implications for public health, social care, and economic stability. Among the most pressing challenges associated with an aging population is the rising prevalence of age-related cognitive decline (Bishop et al., 2010;Yang et al., 2023). This decline ranges from subtle memory lapses to severe neurodegenerative conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (Gonzales et al., 2022). Cognitive impairment significantly compromises an individual's quality of life (Hussenoeder et al., 2020). Furthermore, it increases the burden on families and caregivers while placing immense strain on global healthcare systems (Gauthier et al., 2006;Whitehouse and Moody, 2006;Tahami Monfared et al., 2022). The trajectory of cognitive aging exists on a continuum. In research and clinical settings, cognitive health is often evaluated through "global cognitive function," which refers to the overall functional integrity of the brain's cognitive processes. It represents a generalized construct that summarizes performance across multiple specific domains, including episodic memory, executive function,This umbrella review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021). The review protocol was established a priori to define the research questions, search strategy, and inclusion criteria. The protocol for this study was pre-registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), under the registration number: CRD420251161230.A systematic and comprehensive literature search was conducted in six electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library. The inclusion of SPORTDiscus was intended to capture exercise-specific journals and literature that may be omitted by general medical databases. The search was performed from the inception of each database to September 2025. The search strategy combined keywords and subject headings related to three core concepts: (1) the population (e.g., "older adults," "elderly," "aging"); (2) the intervention (e.g., "multicomponent exercise," "combined training," "mixed exercise"); and (3) the study design (e.g., "systematic review," "meta-analysis"). Detailed search strategy for each database is available in the supplementary materials. For instance, the specific search string used for PubMed was: ("older adults" OR "elderly" OR "aged") AND ("multicomponent exercise" OR "combined training" OR "concurrent training") AND ("systematic review" OR "meta-analysis"). Additionally, the reference lists of included reviews and relevant publications were manually screened to identify any potentially eligible studies.Studies were included in this umbrella review if they met the following criteria: Population: Older adults, defined as having a mean or median age of 60 years or older.Reviews focusing on specific cognitive statuses (e.g., cognitively healthy, Mild Cognitive Impairment MCI, frailty) were all eligible. Intervention: Multicomponent exercise (MCE), defined as a structured exercise program incorporating elements from at least two of the following modalities: aerobic, resistance/strength, balance, and flexibility training. Comparator: Any non-MCE control group. This included inactive controls (e.g., no intervention, usual care) or active controls (e.g., single-intervention exercises like walking only). The inclusion of active controls (SIE) was intended to allow for the evaluation of the specific "added value" or synergistic effects of the multicomponent approach compared to single-intervention exercises. Outcomes: The review must have reported on at least one standardized measure of cognitive function. This included Global Cognitive Function (typically assessed by screening tools such as the MMSE or MoCA), Executive Function, Memory (including subtypes such as working, immediate, delayed, and verbal memory), Attention, or Processing Speed. Study Design: Published systematic reviews with or without a quantitative meta-analysis. Exclusion criteria included original research articles (e.g., individual RCTs), narrative reviews without a systematic search methodology and conference abstracts.All records retrieved from the database search were imported into a reference management software, and duplicates were removed. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the remaining records against the eligibility criteria. The full texts of potentially relevant articles were then retrieved and assessed for final inclusion by the same two reviewers. Any disagreements at either stage of the screening process were resolved through discussion or, if necessary, by consulting a third reviewer. A standardized data extraction form was developed and used by two independent reviewers to extract relevant information from the finally included studies. Discrepancies in extracted data were resolved by consensus. The extracted data included: (1) general characteristics (author, year of publication); (2) study design details (number and type of primary studies); (3) population characteristics (sample size, age, sex, cognitive status); (4) intervention and comparator details; (5) cognitive outcome measures; (6) the results of any quantitative meta-analyses (pooled effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals, heterogeneity statistics); and (7) the authors' conclusions regarding the methodological quality of their included primary studies.The methodological quality of each included systematic review was independently assessed by two reviewers using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool. The AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item instrument that evaluates the rigor of the systematic review process, with seven items designated as critical domains. According to the AMSTAR-2 guidance (Shea et al., 2017), the overall confidence in the results was rated as: "High" (zero or one non-critical weakness), "Moderate" (more than one non-critical weakness), "Low" (one critical weakness with or without non-critical weaknesses), or "Critically Low" (more than one critical weakness). Any disagreements in the quality ratings were resolved by consensus.A narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize the characteristics, key findings, and methodological quality of the included reviews. For the quantitative synthesis, we specifically extracted the pooled effect sizes (Standardized Mean Differences SMD or Mean Differences MD) and their 95% confidence intervals as reported by the original meta-analyses. Systematic reviews that did not provide quantitative pooled estimates were excluded from the generated forest plots and were summarized narratively. Quantitative results from the meta-analyses were extracted and tabulated, organized by specific cognitive outcome domains. Regarding publication bias, we did not perform a de novo funnel plot or Egger's test on the set of included systematic reviews, given the aggregated nature of the data. Instead, we extracted the publication bias findings (e.g., results from Egger 's tests or funnel plot inspections) reported within each included review. These reported assessments were used to evaluate the 'Publication Bias' domain in the subsequent GRADE assessment. Effect sizes were extracted as Standardized Mean Differences (SMD), predominantly Hedges' g (to correct for small sample sizes) or Cohen's d, as reported by the primary reviews. The overall certainty of the evidence for the main cognitive outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. For each outcome, the evidence from the included meta-analyses of RCTs started at "High" certainty. The rating was then downgraded by one level for "serious" limitations or by two levels for "very serious" limitations across five domains: risk of bias (informed by our AMSTAR-2 assessment and the reviews' own quality assessments), inconsistency (unexplained heterogeneity, informed by the I² statistic), indirectness (concerns regarding the generalizability or applicability of the evidence to the research question), imprecision (small number of studies or wide confidence intervals), and publication bias. Consequently, the final certainty of evidence was classified into one of four levels: "High" (very confident in the effect estimate), "Moderate" (moderately confident), "Low" (limited confidence), or "Very Low" (very little confidence).The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1). The initial search across six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library) yielded a total of 2,548 records. After duplicates were removed, 1,987 unique articles remained for screening. During the title and abstract screening phase, 485 records were excluded, leaving 76 full-text articles to be assessed for eligibility. Upon full-text review, a further 49 studies were excluded. Ultimately, 27 systematic reviews (Tseng et al., 2011;Carvalho et al., 2014;Asteasu et al., 2017;Northey et al., 2017;Falck et al., 2019;Sanders et al., 2019;Biazus-Sehn et al., 2020;Bliss et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2020Wang et al., , 2024;;Xiong et al., 2020;Cai et al., 2021;Ahn and Kim, 2022;Gallardo-Gómez et al., 2022;Li et al., 2022;Mello et al., 2022;Silva et al., 2022Silva et al., , 2023;;Xu et al., 2023;Alowaydhah et al., 2024;Cerda-Vega et al., 2024;Luo et al., 2024;Ni et al., 2024;Sirikul et al., 2024;Jia et al., 2025;Liu et al., 2025;Vafa et al., 2025) met the full inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis for this umbrella review.The detailed characteristics of the 27 included reviews are summarized in Table 1. The publication dates ranged from 2011 to 2025, providing a comprehensive overview of the evidence. The scope of these reviews was extensive, collectively synthesizing data from hundreds of primary randomized controlled trials and encompassing tens of thousands of participants. The target populations were consistently older adults. A key source of heterogeneity was the baseline cognitive status, with reviews focusing on cognitively healthy older adults, individuals with MCI, frail or cognitively frail older adults, or mixed populations. The reviews focused on MCE interventions, typically compared against non-exercise controls such as usual care, health education, or social activities. Global cognitive function was the primary outcome reported, with frequent analyses of specific domains including executive function, memory, attention, and processing speed. The quantitative findings from the included systematic reviews consistently demonstrated a beneficial effect of multicomponent exercise on cognitive function in older adults (Table 2). The most frequently assessed outcome was global cognitive function. Across numerous reviews, multicomponent exercise was found to have a statistically significant, small-to-moderate positive effect, with Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs) generally ranging from 0.24 to 0.65. One network meta-analysis reported a particularly large effect size (SMD = 1.52). Positive effects were also consistently reported for other key cognitive domains. Several meta-analyses showed significant improvements in executive function (SMDs ranging from 0.21 to 0.76) and various aspects of memory, including working memory (SMD = 0.38) and overall memory function (SMD = 0.21). While the direction of the effect was consistently positive, many of the pooled analyses reported moderate to substantial statistical heterogeneity (I ² > 50%), suggesting considerable variability in the results of the underlying primary studies.The included systematic reviews utilized a variety of established tools to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of their primary studies (Table 3). The most frequently employed instruments were the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and various versions of the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool. Other tools such as the Jadad scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guidelines were also used by some reviews. Three reviews were narrative or descriptive and did not report a formal quality assessment of primary studies. The authors' conclusions on the quality of the primary evidence were mixed. Several reviews characterized the quality as generally "good" to "excellent". For instance, Northey et al. (Northey et al., 2017) reported a mean PEDro score of 6.7 (out of 10), indicating good quality. However, a substantial number of reviews described the evidence base as being of "fair" to "moderate" quality, or as having a "moderate" to "high" risk of bias. Commonly cited methodological weaknesses in the primary studies included inadequate reporting of randomization and allocation concealment, lack of blinding, and potential selection bias.The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool (Table S2). Overall, the quality was highly variable. Based on the AMSTAR-2 criteria, one review was rated as "High" quality, four as "Moderate" quality, 11 as "Low" quality, and 11 as "Critically Low" quality (Fig. 2). Several critical methodological weaknesses were prevalent, leading to the downgrading of most reviews. The most common critical flaws included a failure to register a protocol a priori (Q2), not providing a list of excluded studies with justification (Q7), failing to discuss the likely impact of risk of bias on the results (Q12), and not adequately reporting on conflicts of interest (Q15) (Fig. 3). These widespread limitations temper the confidence in the conclusions of many of the included reviews.The pooled effects of multicomponent exercise on various cognitive domains are summarized in Table 4. For global cognitive function (Fig. 4A), the meta-analysis of 10 studies demonstrated a moderate and statistically significant positive effect (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.32, 0.57, p and imprecision confidence results of the analysis demonstrated that the overall findings were in the supplementary the of each individual study did not the or direction of the pooled effect sizes for global cognitive function, executive function, or In all the pooled effect estimates and their 95% confidence intervals remained with the primary indicating that no systematic review the overall This the confidence in the that multicomponent exercise a positive effect on cognitive function in older umbrella review evidence from 27 systematic reviews and providing a comprehensive assessment of the effects of multicomponent exercise on cognitive function in older adults. summarize the core findings of this umbrella review and their of a abstract is (Fig. The findings that MCE is an strategy for across a of older populations. The results statistically significant, moderate positive effects on global cognitive function and executive function. While MCE also a benefit for overall memory verbal memory), the analyses for working memory, memory, and did not statistical suggesting that the of MCE may across specific cognitive analyses further that these benefits are in cognitively healthy individuals and with Mild Cognitive Impairment However, this positive is by a critical of the evidence the of the findings, our methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR-2 that the of the included reviews were of "Low" to "Critically Low" quality. Consequently, the certainty of the evidence for most cognitive as assessed by the GRADE was to be "Low" to "Very with global cognitive function a "Moderate" This the of the effect and the quality of the evidence is a of our that MCE Global Cognitive Function and Executive Function with the of exercise interventions, MCE the and systems are to flow and health and et al., et al., et al., 2022). the of (e.g., which the to et al., 2022). these MCE likely a that compared to or However, our synthesis also a in across cognitive domains. While Global and Executive Function showed significant moderate specific such as and did not statistical This be through the of Executive which and are MCE (e.g., In domains like Memory and Processing may cognitive as with improvements et al., et al., et al., 2023). The heterogeneity in these domains that MCE which on may not consistently provide the specific cognitive to these Furthermore, our analyses that MCE is a intervention, in cognitively healthy individuals and with The effect sizes on global in as a strategy to cognitive in healthy aging and as a intervention to cognitive decline in populations. The evidence for frail individuals was but positive, indicating the for of for this group. The substantial statistical heterogeneity in our analyses (I² > for regarding the of analysis that baseline cognitive is one for with and healthy older adults the in However, considerable heterogeneity within This is likely to the variability in MCE across the primary in the and The included reviews ranging from moderate to with from to and (e.g., Furthermore, the a as tests (e.g., test were often pooled under domains like this variability in the of the effect, the direction of the findings consistently positive across suggesting that the benefit of MCE is to protocol primary of this umbrella review is comprehensive and systematic synthesizing a large and of evidence from 27 reviews, we provide a of the of the The assessment of evidence the methodological quality of the reviews with AMSTAR-2 and the certainty of the outcomes with a and critical of the evidence which is a significant to the However, limitations must be as an umbrella review, our findings are by the quality and reporting of the included systematic reviews and the primary studies they The "Low" to "Critically Low" AMSTAR-2 ratings for most reviews that methodological flaws in the evidence base are which was the primary for downgrading the certainty of evidence in our GRADE assessment. a specific to umbrella reviews is the of primary studies across the included systematic reviews, which to and potentially statistical from this we the of a analysis and This analysis demonstrated that the of any systematic review did not the or of the pooled effect sizes for global cognitive function or executive function. This that our conclusions are and are not by a specific of primary the direction of the findings across reviews over the of the confidence the heterogeneity across while an our to specific regarding the design and of MCE the impact of the predominantly "Low" evidence quality ratings must be with This rating not that the intervention is it confidence in the of the effect In exercise "High" certainty is to the is which specific in tools like AMSTAR-2 and while the "Low" quality that research (e.g., with outcome the effect size, it not the clinical of the positive direction of the findings across 27 reviews and the risk of associated with the evidence to MCE as a public health the limitations in evidence quality, the and of the effects have The findings provide for and public health to multicomponent exercise to older adults to or cognitive function. For and MCE be a core of health for cognitively healthy older adults and a intervention for individuals with Design: While an be aerobic, and training. The inclusion of that and cognitive to be particularly MCE are highly and be to various functional a and public health strategy that be in and review critical and for is a pressing for RCTs with including a priori protocol of outcome and reporting to 1. heterogeneity and the benefit from a core outcome set for cognitive assessment in exercise trials In this umbrella review that multicomponent exercise is a strategy for cognitive function in a of older evidence positive effects on global executive function, and , and overall memory However, evidence for improvements in specific such as working memory and processing and highly Consequently, the certainty of this evidence is frequently by the methodological weaknesses and heterogeneity of the primary These findings the for multicomponent exercise in clinical and for general cognitive health, while for and research to intervention for specific cognitive domains. The a detailed of the 27 systematic reviews included in this umbrella review. For each review, the the number and type of primary total sample size, key population characteristics, the cognitive of the a of the intervention details focusing on multicomponent the of the main cognitive outcomes and the primary research or of the review.
Liang et al. (Mon,) studied this question.