Trial reportThe International journal of neuroscience2017
Use, maintenance and dose effects of cognitive speed of processing training in Parkinson's disease.
Trial report in The International journal of neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive training interventions for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecent research indicated that cognitive speed of processing training (SPT) improved Useful Field of View (UFOV) among individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). The effects of SPT in PD have not been further examined. The objectives of the current study were to investigate use, maintenance and dose effects of SPT among individuals with PD.
methodsParticipants who were randomized to SPT or a delayed control group completed the UFOV at a six-month follow-up visit. Use of SPT was monitored across the six-month study period. Regression explored factors affecting SPT use. Mixed effect models were conducted to examine the durability of training gains among those randomized to SPT (n = 44), and training dose effects among the entire sample (n = 87).
resultsThe majority of participants chose to continue to use SPT (52%). Those randomized to SPT maintained improvements in UFOV performance. A significant dose effect of SPT was evident such that more hours of training were associated with greater UFOV performance improvements. The cognitive benefits derived from SPT in PD may be maintained for up to three months.
conclusionFuture research should determine how long gains endure and explore if such training gains transfer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.