Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36767018›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Computer-Based Cognitive Training vs. Paper-and-Pencil Training for Language and Cognitive Deficits in Greek Patients with Mild Alzheimer's Disease: A Preliminary Study.

Eleni-Nefeli Georgopoulou, Anastasia Nousia, Vasileios Siokas, Maria Martzoukou, Elli Zoupa, Lambros Messinis, Efthimios Dardiotis, Grigorios Nasios

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The MINT Sprint 2.0: a Picture Naming Test for Detection of Naming Impairments in ΜCI Due or Not to AD, Greek Version.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Eleni-Nefeli GeorgopoulouDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45500 Ioannina, Greece.
Anastasia NousiaDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45500 Ioannina, Greece.
Vasileios SiokasDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece.
Maria MartzoukouDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45500 Ioannina, Greece.
Elli ZoupaLarisa Day Care Center of People with Alzheimer's Disease, Association for Regional Development and Mental Health (EPAPSY), 15124 Marousi, Greece.
Lambros MessinisLab of Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-3216-9025
Efthimios DardiotisDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, 41500 Larissa, Greece.
Grigorios NasiosDepartment of Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45500 Ioannina, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-7495-6863

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to explore whether Computer-Based Cognitive Training (C-BCT) versus Paper-Pencil Cognitive Training (P-PCT) is more beneficial in improving cognitive and language deficits in Greek patients living with Alzheimer's disease (pwAD). Twenty pwAD were assigned to two groups: (a) the C-BCT group, receiving a computer-based cognitive training program using the RehaCom software, and (b) the P-PCT group, which received cognitive training using paper and pencil. The cognitive training programs lasted 15 weeks and were administered twice a week for approximately one hour per session. The analyses of each group's baseline versus endpoint performance demonstrated that the P-PCT group improved on delayed memory, verbal fluency, attention, processing speed, executive function, general cognitive ability, and activities of daily living. In contrast, the C-BCT group improved on memory (delayed and working), naming, and processing speed. Comparisons between the two groups (C-BCT vs. P-PCT) revealed that both methods had significant effects on patients' cognition, with the P-PCT method transferring the primary cognitive benefits to real-life activities. Our findings indicate that both methods are beneficial in attenuating cognitive and language deficits in pwAD. The need for large-scale neurobehavioral interventions to further clarify this issue, however, remains a priority.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseasecognitive trainingcomputer-based cognitive trainingpaper-pencil cognitive training

Identifiers

PMID36767018
PMCPMC9914594

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.