Home › Research › Prevention trials
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Training in Adults with Major Depressive Disorder
Woolf C, Lampit A, Shahnawaz Z, Sabates J, Norrie LM, Burke D, Naismith SL, Mowszowski L.. Neuropsychology review, 2021-04-28
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is common and disabling, and is linked to functional impairment and increased mortality. While current treatments for MDD are moderately effective, ultimately, up to one third of patients do not achieve full remission. Interestingly, while affective symptoms of major depression typically resolve with the depressive episode, cognitive impairment frequently persists, and has been identified as one of the most prominent predictors of illness recurrence. Additionally, MDD is well-recognised as a key risk factor for further cognitive decline and dementia. Yet, available treatments for MDD do not typically address cognitive impairment. Cognitive training, represents a promising and novel therapeutic intervention in this regard. This review systematically identified and evaluated the evidence for cognitive training in adults with MDD. Following PRISMA guidelines, eligible studies were selected according to pre-defined criteria delineating our target population (adults with clinically defined MDD), parameters for cognitive training interventions (computer-or strategy-based, clinician-facilitated), and study design (controlled trials including pre-post cognitive and psychological or functional outcome data). Of 448 studies identified, nine studies met inclusion criteria. These studies were evaluated for methodological quality and risk of bias. Despite heterogeneity, qualitative and meta-analytic synthesis of study findings revealed significant improvements in cognitive and affective outcomes following cognitive training, with moderate pooled effect sizes. Unfortunately, very few studies investigated 'far transfer' to broader domains of everyday functioning. Overall, given the strong evidence for the efficacy and value of cognitive training in this context, cognitive training should be considered as a primary therapeutic intervention in the treatment of MDD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Woolf, C., Lampit, A., Shahnawaz, Z., Sabates, J., Norrie, L. M., Burke, D., et al. (2022). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Training in Adults with Major Depressive Disorder. Neuropsychology review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09487-3
Vancouver
Woolf C, Lampit A, Shahnawaz Z, Sabates J, Norrie LM, Burke D, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Training in Adults with Major Depressive Disorder. Neuropsychology review. 2022. doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09487-3. PMID: 33913064.
BibTeX
@article{woolf2022-33913064,
author = {Woolf, C. and Lampit, A. and Shahnawaz, Z. and Sabates, J. and Norrie, L. M. and Burke, D. and Naismith, S. L. and Mowszowski, L.},
title = {{A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Training in Adults with Major Depressive Disorder}},
journal = {Neuropsychology review},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1007/s11065-021-09487-3},
pmid = {33913064},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-021-09487-3}
}
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 8 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
- Despite heterogeneity, qualitative and meta-analytic synthesis of study findings revealed significant improvements in cognitive and affective outcomes following cognitive training, with moderate pooled effect sizes.
- Overall, given the strong evidence for the efficacy and value of cognitive training in this context, cognitive training should be considered as a primary therapeutic intervention in the treatment of MDD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychology review) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 33913064) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.