Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25632227›Full record

Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2015

Effects of cognitive training with additional physical activity compared to pure cognitive training in healthy older adults.

Julia Rahe, Annette Petrelli, Stephanie Kaesberg, Gereon R Fink, Josef Kessler, Elke Kalbe

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Julia RahePsychological Gerontology and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Interventions, Institute of Gerontology, University of Vechta, Vechta, Germany.
Annette PetrelliPsychological Gerontology and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Interventions, Institute of Gerontology, University of Vechta, Vechta, Germany.
Stephanie KaesbergCognitive Neurology Section, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Research Center Jülich, Jülich, Germany.
Gereon R FinkDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Josef KesslerDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Elke KalbePsychological Gerontology and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Interventions, Institute of Gerontology, University of Vechta, Vechta, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCognitive training (CT) has been reported to improve cognition in older adults. Its combination with protective factors such as physical activity (CPT) has rarely been studied, but it has been suggested that CPT might show stronger effects than pure CT. MATERIALS AND

methodsHealthy older adults (aged 50-85 years) were trained with CPT (n=15) or CT (n=15). Interventions were conducted in 90-minute sessions twice weekly for 6.5 weeks. Cognitive functions were assessed before and immediately after the interventions, and at 1-year follow-up.

resultsThe main finding was an interaction effect on attention, with comparable gains from CPT and CT from pre- to post-test, but stronger effects of CPT to follow-up (P=0.02). Significant effects were found in subjects in terms of cognitive state (P=0.02), letter verbal fluency (P=0.00), and immediate (P=0.00) and delayed (P=0.01) verbal memory. Post hoc analyses indicated that these latter domains were affected differentially by CPT and CT. No significant between-subject effects were found.

conclusionOur results suggest that CPT might lead to stronger long-term effects on attention. However, as the difference between CT and CPT was only evident at follow-up, these effects cannot be interpreted as a direct consequence of CPT; they may have been related to sustained physical activity after the training. Other domains were improved by both interventions, but no typical pattern could be identified. Possible underlying mechanisms are discussed, and directions for future research are suggested.

Indexed as

AttentionCognitionExecutive FunctionExerciseAgedAge FactorsAgingFemaleHumansMaleMemoryMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsSex Factorscognitive agingcombined interventionexercise

Identifiers

PMID25632227
PMCPMC4304534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.