Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive Training and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cognition in Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-analysis
Lawrence BJ, Gasson N, Bucks RS, Troeung L, Loftus AM.. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2017-06-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Many people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience cognitive decline. It is not known whether cognitive training or noninvasive brain stimulation are effective at alleviating cognitive deficits in PD. Objective To examine cognitive training and non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for cognition in PD. Methods An extensive search was conducted of published and unpublished studies in online databases. Studies were selected if they were controlled trials examining standard (not individualized) or tailored (individualized) cognitive training, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in PD, with outcomes measured by standardized neuropsychological tests. Results Fourteen controlled trials met inclusion criteria. For executive function, the pooled effect size (Hedges' g) for cognitive training (standard and tailored combined) was small ( g = 0.42) but statistically significant (95% CI 0.15-0.68). The pooled effect for standard cognitive training (alone) was medium ( g = 0.51) and significant (95% CI 0.16-0.85). For attention/working memory, small pooled effect sizes were found when combining standard and tailored cognitive training ( g = 0.23; 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and for standard cognitive training alone ( g = 0.29; 95% CI 0.04-0.53), both significant. For memory, small but significant pooled effect sizes were also found when combining standard and tailored cognitive training and for standard cognitive training alone. Conclusions The results suggest that standard and tailored cognitive training may improve executive function, attention/working memory, and memory in PD. Future studies must adopt randomized controlled trial designs to explore the therapeutic potential of these interventions.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lawrence, B. J., Gasson, N., Bucks, R. S., Troeung, L., & Loftus, A. M. (2017). Cognitive Training and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cognition in Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-analysis. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317712468
Vancouver
Lawrence BJ, Gasson N, Bucks RS, Troeung L, Loftus AM. Cognitive Training and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cognition in Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-analysis. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. 2017. doi:10.1177/1545968317712468. PMID: 28583011.
BibTeX
@article{lawrence2017-28583011,
author = {Lawrence, B. J. and Gasson, N. and Bucks, R. S. and Troeung, L. and Loftus, A. M.},
title = {{Cognitive Training and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cognition in Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-analysis}},
journal = {Neurorehabilitation and neural repair},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1177/1545968317712468},
pmid = {28583011},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317712468}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Fourteen controlled trials met inclusion criteria.
- For executive function, the pooled effect size (Hedges' g) for cognitive training (standard and tailored combined) was small ( g = 0.42) but statistically significant (95% CI 0.15-0.68).
- The pooled effect for standard cognitive training (alone) was medium ( g = 0.51) and significant (95% CI 0.16-0.85).
- For attention/working memory, small pooled effect sizes were found when combining standard and tailored cognitive training ( g = 0.23; 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and for standard cognitive training alone ( g = 0.29; 95% CI 0.04-0.53), both significant.
- For memory, small but significant pooled effect sizes were also found when combining standard and tailored cognitive training and for standard cognitive training alone.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurorehabilitation and neural repair) |
| 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 | 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 | 2017 — 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 | 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 28583011) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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 “bodies”
1,017 studies in the library carry the topic tag “bodies”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,017 tagged studies.