Trial reportThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2024
Expectancy Does Not Predict 18-month Treatment Outcomes with Cognitive Training in Mild Cognitive Impairment.
Trial report in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of Improvement after Cognitive Training in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Insights from the Cognitive Training and Neuroplasticity in Mild Cognitive Impairment Trial.Alzheimer disease and associated disordersTrial
- Influence of Preoperative Cognitive Function, Self-Efficacy, and Postoperative Psychological Counselling on Anxiety and Depression Levels in Patients Undergoing Botulinum Toxin Injections.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2026Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Treatments for Mild Cognitive Impairment in Adults: A Systematic Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputerized cognitive training (CCT) has emerged as a potential treatment option for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). It remains unclear whether CCT's effect is driven in part by expectancy of improvement.
objectivesThis study aimed to determine factors associated with therapeutic expectancy and the influence of therapeutic expectancy on treatment effects in a randomized clinical trial of CCT versus crossword puzzle training (CPT) for older adults with MCI.
designRandomized clinical trial of CCT vs CPT with 78-week follow-up.
settingTwo-site study - New York State Psychiatric Institute and Duke University Medical Center.
participants107 patients with MCI.
intervention12 weeks of intensive training with CCT or CPT with follow-up booster training over 78 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Patients rated their expectancies for CCT and CPT prior to randomization.
resultsPatients reported greater expectancy for CCT than CPT. Lower patient expectancy was associated with lower global cognition at baseline and older age. Expectancy did not differ by sex or race. There was no association between expectancy and measures of everyday functioning, hippocampus volume, or apolipoprotein E genotype. Expectancy was not associated with change in measures of global cognition, everyday functioning, and hippocampus volume from baseline to week 78, nor did expectancy interact with treatment condition.
conclusionsWhile greater cognitive impairment and increased age was associated with low expectancy of improvement, expectancy was not associated with the likelihood of response to treatment with CPT or CCT.
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.