Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35266877›Full record

ReviewJMIR serious games2022

The Effectiveness and Safety of Serious Games for Improving Cognitive Abilities Among Elderly People With Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Mohannad Alajlani, Dari Alhuwail, Carla T Toro, Anna Giannicchi, Arfan Ahmed, Ahmed Makhlouf, Mowafa Househ

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR serious games, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exergaming for dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Serious Games for Seniors With Dementia: A Pilot Study.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Alaa Abd-AlrazaqDivision of Information and Computing Technology, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-4626
Mohannad AlajlaniWarwick Manufacturing Group, Institute of Digital Healthcare, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5691-7120
Dari AlhuwailInformation Science Department, College of Life Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5038-3044
Carla T ToroWarwick Manufacturing Group, Institute of Digital Healthcare, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-1340
Anna GiannicchiBehavioral Health Services and Policy Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0526-2985
Arfan AhmedAI Center for Precision Health, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4025-5767
Ahmed MakhloufAmbulance Service, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4447-8834
Mowafa HousehDivision of Information and Computing Technology, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3648-6271
Hamad bin Khalifa University · QAUniversity of Warwick · GBBehavioral Health Services · USHamad Medical Corporation · QAKuwait University · KWWeill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive impairment is a mental disorder that commonly affects elderly people. Serious games, which are games that have a purpose other than entertainment, have been used as a nonpharmacological intervention for improving cognitive abilities. The effectiveness and safety of serious games for improving cognitive abilities have been investigated by several systematic reviews; however, they are limited by design and methodological weaknesses.

objectiveThis study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of serious games for improving cognitive abilities among elderly people with cognitive impairment.

methodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. The following 8 electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We also screened reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews, as well as checked studies citing our included studies. Two reviewers independently carried out the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence appraisal. We used a narrative and statistical approach, as appropriate, to synthesize the results of the included studies.

resultsFifteen studies met the eligibility criteria among 466 citations retrieved. Of those, 14 RCTs were eventually included in the meta-analysis. We found that, regardless of their type, serious games were more effective than no intervention (P=.04) and conventional exercises (P=.002) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Further, a subgroup analysis showed that cognitive training games were more effective than no intervention (P=.05) and conventional exercises (P<.001) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Another subgroup analysis demonstrated that exergames (a category of serious games that includes physical exercises) are as effective as no intervention and conventional exercises (P=.38) for improving global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. Although some studies found adverse events from using serious games, the number of adverse events (ie, falls and exacerbations of pre-existing arthritis symptoms) was comparable between the serious game and control groups.

conclusionsSerious games and specifically cognitive training games have the potential to improve global cognition among elderly people with cognitive impairment. However, our findings remain inconclusive because the quality of evidence in all meta-analyses was very low, mainly due to the risk of bias raised in the majority of the included studies, high heterogeneity of the evidence, and imprecision of total effect sizes. Therefore, psychologists, psychiatrists, and patients should consider offering serious games as a complement and not a substitute to existing interventions until further more robust evidence is available. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of exergames, the safety of serious games, and their long-term effects.

Indexed as

Alzheimer diseasecognitive trainingdementiaexergamesglobal cognitionmeta-analysismild cognitive impairmentserious gamessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35266877
PMCPMC8949701
OpenAlexW4200454404

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.