Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30407291›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2018

A comparison of the effects between 2 computerized cognitive training programs, Bettercog and COMCOG, on elderly patients with MCI and mild dementia: A single-blind randomized controlled study.

Goo Joo Lee, Heui Je Bang, Kyoung Moo Lee, Hyun Ho Kong, Hyeun Suk Seo, Minwoo Oh, Miyeon Bang

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Goo Joo LeeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Heui Je BangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Kyoung Moo LeeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Hyun Ho KongDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Hyeun Suk SeoDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Minwoo OhDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Miyeon BangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital.
Chungbuk National University Hospital · KRNational University College · PR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA computerized cognitive rehabilitation program can be used to treat patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. We developed a new computerized cognitive rehabilitation program (Bettercog) that contained various treatment programs for cognitive training for mild cognitive impairment or dementia. This study was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of Bettercog and computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation (COMCOG) that has had clinical efficacy previously proven in patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

methodsRandomized, single-blind comparison pilot study of 20 elderly patients with cognitive decline-eight men and 12 women-with an average age of 74.3 years. Bettercog trains not only memory and attention but also orientation, calculation, executive function, language, comprehension, and spatiotemporal abilities. To retain subjects' interest, pictures, animations, and game elements were introduced. The subjects were divided into COMCOG and Bettercog groups by random assignment and underwent 12 sessions of a computerized cognitive rehabilitation program for three weeks. In a separate space, an independent clinical psychologist conducted the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery 2nd edition (SNSB-II), Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and the Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI) before and after treatment.

resultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline age, sex, illiteracy, years of education, and scores on the K-MMSE, CDR, SNSB-II, and K-MBI. In the posttreatment cognitive assessment, the K-MMSE scores of patients treated with Bettercog improved from 19.2 ± 3.9 to 21.3 ± 4.0 (P = .005). In the memory domain of the SNSB-II, the percentile score improved from 15.3 ± 24.5 to 24.2 ± 30.7 (P = .026). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the final K-MMSE, CDR, and SNSB-II scores between the two treatment groups. In both groups, K-MBI scores improved statistically significantly after treatment.

conclusionsThrough this preliminary study, we verified that the newly developed computerized cognitive rehabilitation program is effective in improving cognitive function. However, 12 sessions are not enough to administer a variety of cognitive rehabilitation content to patients. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct a large-scale study using a computerized cognitive rehabilitation program that has various cognitive content.

Indexed as

Therapy, Computer-AssistedAgedAged, 80 and overCognitionCognitive Behavioral TherapyCognitive DysfunctionDementiaFemaleHumansMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsNeuropsychological TestsPilot ProjectsSingle-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30407291
PMCPMC6250524
OpenAlexW2899806196

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.