19, 20, 21 and 29 Most of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 818, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 30), 2 were conducted http://www.selleckchem.com/products/pexidartinib-plx3397.html in Australia,17 and 31 3 in Canada,20, 21 and 29 and 1 each in China,32 Sweden,22 Finland,16 and the United Kingdom.26 The studies involved more than 429 residents with dementia (the total number is not clear as one study recruited 5 units with between 25 and 31 residents in each unit).21 More than 72 members of staff and 44 members of family or friends were included in the qualitative studies, again the total number is not clear as one study did not provide this information.17 The setting was described as a nursing home facility

in 9 studies, 5 were conducted in specialized dementia care facilities, and 3 were conducted in nursing homes with specialized dementia units. Of the 10 quantitative studies, 6 were designed as pre-post studies, 2 were RCTs, 1 was a prospective cohort, and 1 was a crossover trial. Most of the studies had a high risk of bias from the lack of blinding involved, but this was largely due to the inability to mask “going into the garden” as an intervention, as residents within one nursing home were randomized to the “control” or “intervention” group. Half of the studies failed to report eligibility criteria or use valid data collection tools. No studies reported power-calculations check details or compliance with

the intervention. Seven of the studies were able to account for all of their participants PAK6 in their reports (Supplementary Table 3). Lack of clarity and poor interpretation in 2 studies18 and 19 prevented any detailed description of either study in this review. All of the qualitative

studies had clear research questions, used appropriate study designs, and described results that were clearly substantiated by the data. Most studies also described some form of theoretical stance behind the research question, adequately described how data were collected, and made reasonable claims about generalizability of findings. Most of the studies reflected on outdoor environments as therapeutic in nature, providing an opportunity for multisensory stimulation through reminiscence, social interaction, proving physical and cognitive competence, and improving self-esteem and relaxation. In most of the studies it was not possible to tell if the theoretical perspective had influenced the study design or research findings, nor was it clear if the sample size was adequate or if any potential ethical issues (such as involving people with dementia in research) had been addressed. In fewer than half of the studies, it was difficult to appraise data collection and analysis quality and little consideration was given to the limitations in study discussions (Supplementary Table 4). In summary, the included studies have been reported poorly and the results are potentially at risk of bias.