Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31650255›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2021

Effects of computerised cognitive training on cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis.

Mingyue Hu, Xinyin Wu, Xinhui Shu, Hengyu Hu, Qiong Chen, Linlin Peng, Hui Feng

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mingyue HuDepartment of Nursing, XiangYa School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xinyin WuDepartment of Public Health, XiangYa School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xinhui ShuDepartment of Hematology, Tumor Hospital of Henan Province, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Hengyu HuDepartment of Nursing, XiangYa School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Qiong ChenDepartment of Geriatrics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Linlin PengDepartment of Geriatrics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Hui FengDepartment of Nursing, XiangYa School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China. feng.hui@csu.edu.cn.
Central South University · CNXiangya Hospital Central South University · CNZhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComputerised cognitive training (CCT) has been shown to enhance cognitive function in elderly individuals with cognitive deterioration, but evidence is controversial. Additionally, whether specific CCT is most effective and which stages of cognitive impairment benefit most is unclear.

methodsWe systematically searched nine medical and technological databases to collect randomized controlled trials related to CCT primarily conducted in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

resultsWe identified 12 studies in patients with SCD and MCI. Pooled analysis showed that CCT could significantly improve cognitive function (g = 0.518, p = 0.000), especially related to memory. In terms of different types of cognitive training, specific CCT was more efficacious than non-specific CCT (g = 0.381, p = 0.007) or placebo (g = 0.734, p = 0.000) but not traditional CT (p = 0.628). In terms of stages of cognitive deterioration, the effect of CCT on SCD (g = 0.926, p = 0.002) was almost double that of its effect on MCI (g = 0.502, p = 0.000).

conclusionCCT was most effective in cognitive rehabilitation, particularly in the subdomain of memory. Early intervention in SCD is better.

Indexed as

Cognition DisordersCognitive DysfunctionAgedCognitionHumansMemoryComputerized cognitive trainingMeta-analysisMild cognitive impairmentRandomized controlled trialsSubjective cognitive decline

Identifiers

PMID31650255
OpenAlexW2981839314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.