Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive Reserve in Dementia: Implications for Cognitive Training
Mondini S, Madella I, Zangrossi A, Bigolin A, Tomasi C, Michieletto M, Villani D, Di Giovanni G et al.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2016-04-26
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cognitive reserve (CR) is a potential mechanism to cope with brain damage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of CR on a cognitive training (CT) in a group of patients with dementia. Eighty six participants with mild to moderate dementia were identified by their level of CR quantified by the CR Index questionnaire (CRIq) and underwent a cycle of CT. A global measure of cognition mini mental state examination (MMSE) was obtained before (T0) and after (T1) the training. Multiple linear regression analyses highlighted CR as a significant factor able to predict changes in cognitive performance after the CT. In particular, patients with lower CR benefited from a CT program more than those with high CR. These data show that CR can modulate the outcome of a CT program and that it should be considered as a predictive factor of neuropsychological rehabilitation training efficacy in people with dementia.
Key findings
- Multiple linear regression analyses highlighted CR as a significant factor able to predict changes in cognitive performance after the CT.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 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 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 27199734) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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
Mondini, S., Madella, I., Zangrossi, A., Bigolin, A., Tomasi, C., Michieletto, M., et al. (2016). Cognitive Reserve in Dementia: Implications for Cognitive Training. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00084
Vancouver
Mondini S, Madella I, Zangrossi A, Bigolin A, Tomasi C, Michieletto M, et al. Cognitive Reserve in Dementia: Implications for Cognitive Training. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2016. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2016.00084. PMID: 27199734.
BibTeX
@article{mondini2016-27199734,
author = {Mondini, S. and Madella, I. and Zangrossi, A. and Bigolin, A. and Tomasi, C. and Michieletto, M. and Villani, D. and Di Giovanni, G. and others},
title = {{Cognitive Reserve in Dementia: Implications for Cognitive Training}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2016.00084},
pmid = {27199734},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2016.00084}
}
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.