Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33503851›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2021

Brain Training and Sulforaphane Intake Interventions Separately Improve Cognitive Performance in Healthy Older Adults, Whereas a Combination of These Interventions Does Not Have More Beneficial Effects: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rui Nouchi, Qingqiang Hu, Toshiki Saito, Natasha Yuriko Dos Santos Kawata, Haruka Nouchi, Ryuta Kawashima

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Large insertion in radishFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors.

Rui NouchiDepartment of Cognitive Health Science, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
Qingqiang HuNature and Wellness Research Department, Innovation Division, Kagome Co., Ltd., 17, Nishitomiyama, Nasushiobara 329-2762, Japan.
Toshiki SaitoDepartment of Functional Brain Imaging, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
Natasha Yuriko Dos Santos KawataDepartment of Functional Brain Imaging, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
Haruka NouchiDepartment of Cognitive Health Science, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
Ryuta KawashimaSmart Aging Research Center (S.A.R.C.), Tohoku University, Seiryo-Machi 4-1, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.

Funding

Kagome Co., Ltd an industry-academia collaboration initiated by Tohoku Universitythe Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI 15H05366 (Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A))the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI 16KT0002 (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B))the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI 17H06046 553 (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarlier studies have demonstrated that a single-domain intervention, such as a brain-training (BT) game alone and a sulforaphane (SFN) intake, positively affects cognition. This study examined whether a combined BT and SFN intake intervention has beneficial effects on cognitive function in older adults.

methodsIn a 12-week double-blinded randomized control trial, 144 older adults were randomly assigned to one of four groups: BT with SFN (BT-S), BT with placebo (BT-P), active control game (AT) with SFN (AT-S), and active control game with placebo (AT-P). We used Brain Age in BT and Tetris in AT. Participants were asked to play BT or AT for 15 min a day for 12 weeks while taking a supplement (SFN or placebo). We measured several cognitive functions before and after the intervention period.

resultsThe BT (BT-S and BT-P) groups showed more improvement in processing speed than the active control groups (AT-S and AT-P). The SFN intake (BT-S and AT-S) groups recorded significant improvements in processing speed and working memory performance unlike the placebo intake groups (BT-P and AT-P). However, we did not find any evidence of the combined intervention's beneficial effects on cognition. DISCUSSION: We discussed a mechanism to improve cognitive functions in the BT and SFN alone interventions.

Indexed as

Games, ExperimentalAgedAnticarcinogenic AgentsBrainCognitionDouble-Blind MethodExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansIsothiocyanatesMaleNeuropsychological TestsSulfoxidesAnticarcinogenic AgentsIsothiocyanatessulforaphaneSulfoxidesbrain trainingcognitive trainingmultidomain interventionnutritionsulforaphane

Identifiers

PMID33503851
PMCPMC7912304

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.