Home › Research › Prevention trials
A double-blind randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of cognitive training delivered using two different methods in mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: preliminary report of benefits associated with the use of a computerized tool
Bernini S, Panzarasa S, Barbieri M, Sinforiani E, Quaglini S, Tassorelli C, Bottiroli S.. Aging clinical and experimental research, 2020-09-08
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The effectiveness of computer-based cognitive training (CCT) remains controversial, especially in older adults with neurodegenerative diseases. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of CCT in patients with Parkinson's disease and mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI). Methods In this randomized controlled trial, 53 patients were randomized to receive CCT delivered by means of CoRe software, traditional paper-and-pencil cognitive training (PCT), or an unstructured activity intervention (CG). In each group, the intervention lasted 3 consecutive weeks (4 individual face-to-face sessions/week). Neuropsychological assessment was administered at baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1). Outcome measures at T0 and T1 were compared within and between groups. The Montreal Overall Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was taken as the primary outcome measure. Results Unlike the PCT group and the CG, the patients receiving CCT showed significant medium/large effect size improvements in MoCA performance, global cognition, executive functions, and attention/processing speed. No baseline individual/demographic variables were associated with greater gains from the intervention, although a negative correlation with baseline MoCA performance was found. Conclusion CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT. Further follow-up assessments are being conducted to verify the retention of the gains and the potential ability of the tool to delay conversion to PD-dementia. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT04111640 (30th September 2019).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bernini, S., Panzarasa, S., Barbieri, M., Sinforiani, E., Quaglini, S., Tassorelli, C., et al. (2021). A double-blind randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of cognitive training delivered using two different methods in mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: preliminary report of benefits associated with the use of a computerized tool. Aging clinical and experimental research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01665-2
Vancouver
Bernini S, Panzarasa S, Barbieri M, Sinforiani E, Quaglini S, Tassorelli C, et al. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of cognitive training delivered using two different methods in mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: preliminary report of benefits associated with the use of a computerized tool. Aging clinical and experimental research. 2021. doi:10.1007/s40520-020-01665-2. PMID: 32895890.
BibTeX
@article{bernini2021-32895890,
author = {Bernini, S. and Panzarasa, S. and Barbieri, M. and Sinforiani, E. and Quaglini, S. and Tassorelli, C. and Bottiroli, S.},
title = {{A double-blind randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of cognitive training delivered using two different methods in mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: preliminary report of benefits associated with the use of a computerized tool}},
journal = {Aging clinical and experimental research},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s40520-020-01665-2},
pmid = {32895890},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01665-2}
}
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.
Key findings
- The Montreal Overall Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was taken as the primary outcome measure.
- Results Unlike the PCT group and the CG, the patients receiving CCT showed significant medium/large effect size improvements in MoCA performance, global cognition, executive functions, and attention/processing speed.
- No baseline individual/demographic variables were associated with greater gains from the intervention, although a negative correlation with baseline MoCA performance was found.
- Conclusion CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants53
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for 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 (Aging clinical and experimental research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 53 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| 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 32895890) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “mini-mental”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mini-mental”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.