ArticleOpen access journal of clinical trials2018
Computerized Cognitive Training to Improve Mood in Senior Living Settings: Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Open access journal of clinical trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of a group-based 8-week multicomponent cognitive training on cognition, mood and activities of daily living among healthy older adults: A two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Trial
- Speed of processing training and depression in assisted and independent living: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Digital technologies in care for older adults living alone: a scoping review.Innovation in aging · 2026Review
- Effects of a 12-Week Hybrid Analog-Digital Cognitive Training on Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults: A Pilot Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Dementia and neurocognitive disorders · 2025Article
- Does Visual Speed of Processing Training Improve Health-Related Quality of Life in Assisted and Independent Living Communities?: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Innovation in aging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis two-arm, randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate a computerized cognitive speed of processing (SOP) training known as PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsA community-based design engaged AL and related senior living settings as partners in research. Selected staff served as on-site research assistants who were trained to recruit, consent, and train a target of 300 participants from AL and independent living (IL) programs to use the intervention and attention-control computerized training. Ten hours of initial computerized training was followed by two booster sessions at 5 and 11 months. Outcome measures included Useful Field of View (UFOV), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), 12-item Centers for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CESD-12), 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorders GAD-7), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and SF-36 Health Survey. Assessments occurred before randomization (pre-training), post-training, 26 and 52 weeks.
resultsA total of 351 participants were randomized to the intervention (n=173) and attention-control (n=178) groups. There were no significant differences between groups in demographic characteristics with the exception of education and reported osteoporosis. There were no significant differences in study outcomes between groups at baseline. Participants in AL had significantly lower SOP and self-rated health, and significantly higher depression, anxiety and pain when compared to those in IL programs on the same campus.
conclusionsCompared to earlier SOP training studies using
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.