Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28066236›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in aging neuroscience2016

Computer-Based Cognitive Training in Aging.

Blanka Klimova

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. A Novel Educational Smartphone Application for Cognitively Healthy Seniors: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Blanka KlimovaDepartment of Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Kralove Hradec Kralove, Czechia.
University of Hradec Králové · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At present there is a rapid growth of aging population groups worldwide, which brings about serious economic and social problems. Thus, there is considerable effort to prolong the active life of these older people and keep them independent. The purpose of this mini review is to explore available clinical studies implementing computer-based cognitive training programs as intervention tools in the prevention and delay of cognitive decline in aging, with a special focus on their effectiveness. This was done by conducting a literature search in the databases Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE and Springer, and consequently by evaluating the findings of the relevant studies. The findings show that computerized cognitive training can lead to the improvement of cognitive functions such as working memory and reasoning skills in particular. However, this training should be performed over a longer time span since a short-term cognitive training mainly has an impact on short-term memory with temporary effects. In addition, the training must be intense to become effective. Furthermore, the results indicate that it is important to pay close attention to the methodological standards in future clinical studies.

Indexed as

cognitive declineinterventionmemoryolder peopleonline trainingrandomized controlled clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID28066236
PMCPMC5168996
OpenAlexW2566788429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.