Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35877166›Full record

ReviewJMIR serious games2022

Effectiveness of Serious Games for Improving Executive Functions Among Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Alaa Abd-Alrazaq, Dari Alhuwail, Arfan Ahmed, Mowafa Househ

Abstract 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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exergaming for dementia and mild cognitive impairment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

4 authors.

Alaa Abd-AlrazaqAI Center for Precision Health, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-4626
Dari AlhuwailInformation Science Department, College of Life Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5038-3044
Arfan AhmedAI Center for Precision Health, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4025-5767
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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExecutive functions are one of the known cognitive abilities that decline with age. They are the high-order cognitive processes that enable an individual to concentrate, plan, and take action. Serious games, which are games developed for specific purposes other than entertainment, could play a positive role in improving executive functions. Several systematic reviews have pooled the evidence about the effectiveness of serious games in improving executive functions; however, they are limited by some weaknesses.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate the effectiveness of serious games for improving executive functions among older adults with cognitive impairment.

methodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. To retrieve relevant studies, 8 electronic databases were searched. Further, reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews were screened, and we checked studies that cited our included studies. Two reviewers independently checked the eligibility of the studies, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias, and appraised the quality of the evidence. We used a narrative and statistical approach, as appropriate, to synthesize results of the included studies.

resultsOf 548 publications identified, 16 RCTs were eventually included in this review. Of the 16 studies, 14 studies were included in 6 meta-analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that serious games are as effective as no or passive interventions at improving executive functions (P=.29). Surprisingly, conventional exercises were more effective than serious games at improving executive functions (P=.03). Our subgroup analysis showed that both types of serious games (cognitive training games, P=.08; exergames, P=.16) are as effective as conventional exercises at improving executive functions. No difference was found between adaptive serious games and nonadaptive serious games for improving executive functions (P=.59).

conclusionsSerious games are not superior to no or passive interventions and conventional exercises at improving executive functions among older adults with cognitive impairment. However, our findings remain inconclusive due to the low quality of the evidence, the small sample size in most included studies, and the paucity of studies included in the meta-analyses. Accordingly, until more robust evidence is available, serious games should not be offered by health care providers nor used by patients for improving executive functions among older adults with cognitive impairment. Further reviews are needed to assess the long-term effect of serious games on specific executive functions or other cognitive abilities among people from different age groups with or without cognitive impairment.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021272757; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=272757.

Indexed as

Alzheimer diseasecognitive trainingdementiaexecutive functionsexergamesmeta-analysismild cognitive impairmentserious gamessystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35877166
PMCPMC9361143

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.