Home › Research › Prevention trials
A comparison of the effects between 2 computerized cognitive training programs, Bettercog and COMCOG, on elderly patients with MCI and mild dementia: A single-blind randomized controlled study
Lee GJ, Bang HJ, Lee KM, Kong HH, Seo HS, Oh M, Bang M.. Medicine, 2018-11-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline age, sex, illiteracy, years of education, and scores on the K-MMSE, CDR, SNSB-II, and K-MBI. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the final K-MMSE, CDR, and SNSB-II scores between the two treatment groups. In both groups, K-MBI scores improved statistically significantly after treatment.
Key findings
- Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline age, sex, illiteracy, years of education, and scores on the K-MMSE, CDR, SNSB-II, and K-MBI.
- However, there was no statistically significant difference in the final K-MMSE, CDR, and SNSB-II scores between the two treatment groups.
- In both groups, K-MBI scores improved statistically significantly after treatment.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30407291) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Lee, G. J., Bang, H. J., Lee, K. M., Kong, H. H., Seo, H. S., Oh, M., et al. (2018). A comparison of the effects between 2 computerized cognitive training programs, Bettercog and COMCOG, on elderly patients with MCI and mild dementia: A single-blind randomized controlled study. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000013007
Vancouver
Lee GJ, Bang HJ, Lee KM, Kong HH, Seo HS, Oh M, et al. A comparison of the effects between 2 computerized cognitive training programs, Bettercog and COMCOG, on elderly patients with MCI and mild dementia: A single-blind randomized controlled study. Medicine. 2018. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000013007. PMID: 30407291.
BibTeX
@article{lee2018-30407291,
author = {Lee, G. J. and Bang, H. J. and Lee, K. M. and Kong, H. H. and Seo, H. S. and Oh, M. and Bang, M.},
title = {{A comparison of the effects between 2 computerized cognitive training programs, Bettercog and COMCOG, on elderly patients with MCI and mild dementia: A single-blind randomized controlled study}},
journal = {Medicine},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1097/md.0000000000013007},
pmid = {30407291},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000013007}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “cognitive-function”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.