Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28092015›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2017

Enhancing Cognitive Functioning in Healthly Older Adults: a Systematic Review of the Clinical Significance of Commercially Available Computerized Cognitive Training in Preventing Cognitive Decline.

Tejal M Shah, Michael Weinborn, Giuseppe Verdile, Hamid R Sohrabi, Ralph N Martins

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04439591 (Group-based Brain-computer Interface), which is not on this map. Cited by 66 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04439591 nacompletednot on this map

Group-based Brain-computer Interface (BCI) Cognitive Training in Healthy Older Adults: An Evaluation of Programme Implementation and Effectiveness in Neighborhood Community Centers

TypeinterventionalSponsorGeriatric Education and Research InstituteRan2017 to 2018Enrolled94ConditionsCognitionArmsComputerised cognitive training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Computerized Cognitive Training for Older Adults at Higher Dementia Risk due to Diabetes: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2020 · on this map
    Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tejal M ShahMcCusker Alzheimer's Research Foundation, Hollywood Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia, 6009.
Michael WeinbornMcCusker Alzheimer's Research Foundation, Hollywood Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia, 6009.
Giuseppe VerdileMcCusker Alzheimer's Research Foundation, Hollywood Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia, 6009.
Hamid R SohrabiMcCusker Alzheimer's Research Foundation, Hollywood Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia, 6009.
Ralph N MartinsMcCusker Alzheimer's Research Foundation, Hollywood Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia, 6009. r.martins@ecu.edu.au.
Australian Alzheimer’s Research Foundation · AUEdith Cowan University · AUUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successfully assisting older adults to maintain or improve cognitive function, particularly when they are dealing with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains a major challenge. Cognitive training may stimulate neuroplasticity thereby increasing cognitive and brain reserve. Commercial brain training programs are computerized, readily-available, easy-to-administer and adaptive but often lack supportive data and their clinical validation literature has not been previously reviewed. Therefore, in this review, we report the characteristics of commercially available brain training programs, critically assess the number and quality of studies evaluating the empirical evidence of these programs for promoting brain health in healthy older adults, and discuss underlying causal mechanisms. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and each program's website for relevant studies reporting the effects of computerized cognitive training on cognitively healthy older adults. The evidence for each program was assessed via the number and quality (PEDro score) of studies, including Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). Programs with clinical studies were subsequently classified as possessing Level I, II or III evidence. Out of 18 identified programs, 7 programs were investigated in 26 studies including follow-ups. Two programs were identified as possessing Level I evidence, three programs demonstrated Level II evidence and an additional two programs demonstrated Level III evidence. Overall, studies showed generally high methodological quality (average PEDro score = 7.05). Although caution must be taken regarding any potential bias due to selective reporting, current evidence supports that at least some commercially available computerized brain training products can assist in promoting healthy brain aging.

Indexed as

AgingCognition DisordersCognitive Behavioral TherapyHumansTherapy, Computer-AssistedAlzheimer’s diseaseBrain trainingCognitionComputerized cognitive trainingDementia

Identifiers

PMID28092015
OpenAlexW2577650921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.