ArticleDigital health
The effectiveness of remote computerized cognitive training for older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Remote computerized cognitive training (RCCT) is increasingly used as a scalable intervention to support cognitive function in older adults, particularly those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, evidence regarding its effectiveness remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to identify and critically assess the evidence on the effectiveness of RCCT in improving the cognitive function of older adults with MCI. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating RCCT in older adults with MCI. Screening of references was performed against predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and the methodological quality of included studies using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale were performed by two authors. Results: A total of 17 studies were included. Among the eight studies comparing RCCT to leisure-based activities, statistically significant differences favouring RCCT were reported in 11 out of 25 cognitive assessments. In comparison with usual care (5 studies), 9 out of 16 assessments showed significant differences. When RCCT was compared to no intervention (4 studies), statistically significant differences were found in 6 out of 8 assessments. Overall, the findings were inconsistent, and the evidence remains inconclusive. High variability was found in intervention content, duration, control conditions, and outcome measures. Conclusions: The results were unclear regarding the effectiveness of RCCT. Clearer definitions of the intervention and higher methodological quality are needed. Trial registration: PROSPEROCRD42023444763.
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.