ArticleDigital health
Effects of computer-based cognitive training combined with physical training for older adults with cognitive impairment: A four-arm randomized controlled trial.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06598163 (Efficacy of a Digital Health App Five Lives MED to Improve Cognitive Function in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Efficacy of a Digital Health App Five Lives MED to Improve Cognitive Function in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment: a Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparing Digital Cognitive Interventions to Active Controls and Usual Care for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- The influence of eight cognitive training regimes upon cognitive screening tool performance in post-stroke survivors: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies to Optimize Recovery in Frail Patients With Cardiovascular Disease Through Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation.Journal of lipid and atherosclerosis · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Combined physical (PHY) and cognitive (COG) training in sequential (SEQ) and simultaneous (SIMUL) sessions may delay the progression of cognitive impairment. To date, no study has directly compared in older adults with cognitive impairment the effects of COG training, PHY training, SEQ motor-cognitive training and SIMUL motor-cognitve training on specific indices of cognitive performance and activities of daily living (ADL). The purpose of this study was to determine whether SEQ and SIMUL motor-cognitive training can improve treatment outcomes compared with PHY or COG training alone. We also aimed to compare the effects of SEQ versus SIMUL motor-cognitive training on cognitive functions and instrumental ADL (IADL) in older adults with cognitive impairment. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted. Eighty older adults with cognitive impairment were randomly assigned to COG, PHY, SEQ or SIMUL training groups. The intervention consisted of 90-min training sessions, totaling 36 sessions. Outcome measures were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, three subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) and the Lawton IADL scale. Results: Significant interaction effects between group and time were found in WMS-spatial span ( Conclusions: Our study showed SEQ and SIMUL motor-cognitive training led to more pronounced improvements in visuospatial working memory or verbal memory compared with isolated COG or PHY training for community-based older adults with cognitive impairment. For enhancing effects on IADL, we suggest the use of sensitive measurement tools and context-enriched cognitive training involving real-life task demands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.