alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Prevention trials

A computer-based cognitive training in Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease

Bernini S, Alloni A, Panzarasa S, Picascia M, Quaglini S, Tassorelli C, Sinforiani E.. NeuroRehabilitation, 2019-01-01

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background There is no successful pharmacological treatment for cognitive impairment in Parkinson's Disease, therefore treatments capable of slowing down the progression of cognitive dysfunction are needed. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a cognitive training, supported by the CoRe computerized tool, in patients with Parkinson's Disease Mild Cognitive Impairment. Methods This is a prospective, open-unblinded, randomized, controlled study. After baseline cognitive assessment (T0), enrolled patients were randomized to receive motor rehabilitation plus cognitive intervention (G1) or motor rehabilitation only (G2). Follow-up assessments were scheduled 4 weeks (T1) and 6 months after (T2). Global cognitive functioning scores (MOCA and MMSE) were considered as primary outcome. Outcome measures at T0, T1 and T2 were compared within- and between-groups. A percentage change score between T0 and next assessments was calculated to identify patients who improved, remain stable or worsened. Results Differently from G2, G1 showed a medium/large effect size improvement in primary (MoCA) and secondary outcome, both between T0 and T1 and T0 and T2. Moreover, within G1, most patients improved their cognitive state compared to the baseline. Conclusions Patients trained with CoRe showed a better evolution of cognitive decline, while untreated patients tended to get worse over time.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

How this study scored 71/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 41 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 71 of 100. Total 71 of 100.41 of the 58 points we could judge = 71 of 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroRehabilitation)
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 2019 — 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 1 / 2 Randomised (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 31256092)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 41 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total 71 / 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

Bernini, S., Alloni, A., Panzarasa, S., Picascia, M., Quaglini, S., Tassorelli, C., et al. (2019). A computer-based cognitive training in Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease. NeuroRehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3233/nre-192714

Vancouver

Bernini S, Alloni A, Panzarasa S, Picascia M, Quaglini S, Tassorelli C, et al. A computer-based cognitive training in Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019. doi:10.3233/nre-192714. PMID: 31256092.

BibTeX

@article{bernini2019-31256092,
  author  = {Bernini, S. and Alloni, A. and Panzarasa, S. and Picascia, M. and Quaglini, S. and Tassorelli, C. and Sinforiani, E.},
  title   = {{A computer-based cognitive training in Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson's Disease}},
  journal = {NeuroRehabilitation},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.3233/nre-192714},
  pmid    = {31256092},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/nre-192714}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “assessment”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →