Home › Research › Prevention trials
A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Training Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment
Martin DM, Mohan A, Alonzo A, Gates N, Gbadeyan O, Meinzer M, Sachdev P, Brodaty H et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2019-08-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background There is currently no effective intervention for improving memory in people at increased risk for dementia. Cognitive training (CT) has been promising, though effects are modest, particularly at follow-up. Objective To investigate whether adjunctive non-invasive brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) could enhance the memory benefits of CT in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Methods Participants with aMCI were randomized to receive CT with either Active tDCS (2 mA for 30 min and 0.016 mA for 30 min) or Sham tDCS (0.016 mA for 60 min) for 15 sessions over a period of 5 weeks in a double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel group clinical trial. The primary outcome measure was the California Verbal Learning Task 2nd Edition. Results 68 participants commenced the intervention. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the CT+Active tDCS group significantly improved at post treatment (p = 0.033), and the CT+Sham tDCS group did not (p = 0.050), but there was no difference between groups. At the 3-month follow-up, both groups showed large-sized memory improvements compared to pre-treatment (CT+Active tDCS: p < 0.01, d = 0.99; CT+Sham tDCS: p < 0.01, d = 0.74), although there was no significant difference between groups. Conclusion This study found that CT+Active tDCS did not produce greater memory improvement compared to CT+Sham tDCS. Large-sized memory improvements occurred in both conditions at follow-up. One possible interpretation, based on recent novel findings, is that low intensity tDCS (used as 'sham') may have contributed biological effects. Further work should use a completely inert tDCS sham condition.
Key findings
- Background There is currently no effective intervention for improving memory in people at increased risk for dementia.
- Results 68 participants commenced the intervention.
- Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the CT+Active tDCS group significantly improved at post treatment (p = 0.033), and the CT+Sham tDCS group did not (p = 0.050), but there was no difference between groups.
- At the 3-month follow-up, both groups showed large-sized memory improvements compared to pre-treatment (CT+Active tDCS: p < 0.01, d = 0.99; CT+Sham tDCS: p < 0.01, d = 0.74), although there was no significant difference between groups.
- Conclusion This study found that CT+Active tDCS did not produce greater memory improvement compared to CT+Sham tDCS.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants68
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 68 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 31424410) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Martin, D. M., Mohan, A., Alonzo, A., Gates, N., Gbadeyan, O., Meinzer, M., et al. (2019). A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Training Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190306
Vancouver
Martin DM, Mohan A, Alonzo A, Gates N, Gbadeyan O, Meinzer M, et al. A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Training Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-190306. PMID: 31424410.
BibTeX
@article{martin2019-31424410,
author = {Martin, D. M. and Mohan, A. and Alonzo, A. and Gates, N. and Gbadeyan, O. and Meinzer, M. and Sachdev, P. and Brodaty, H. and others},
title = {{A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Training Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3233/jad-190306},
pmid = {31424410},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190306}
}