Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Depression is common in people with cognitive impairment but the effect of cognitive training in the reduction of depression is still uncertain. Aims The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effect of cognitive training interventions in the reduction of depression rating scale score in people with cognitive impairment. Methods Literature searches were conducted via OVID databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the effect of cognitive training interventions for the reduction of depression rating scale score in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia were included. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to combine the results of Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to combine the results of different depression rating scales. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the types of cognitive training and severity of cognitive impairment, i.e. MCI and dementia. Results A total of 2551 people with MCI or dementia were extracted from 36 RCTs. The baseline mean score of GDS-15 was 4.83. Participants received cognitive training interventions had a significant decrease in depression rating scale score than the control group (MD of GDS-15 = -1.30, 95% CI = -2.14--0.47; and SMD of eight depression scales was -0.54 (95% CI = -0.77--0.31). In subgroup analyses, the effect size of computerized cognitive training and cognitive stimulation therapy were medium-to-large and statistically significant in the reduction of depression rating scale score. Conclusions Cognitive training interventions show to be a potential treatment to ameliorate depression in people with cognitive impairment.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 76/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 44 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 76 of 100. Total 76 of 100.44 of the 58 points we could judge = 76 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing)
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 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 2,551 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 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 32378715)
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.

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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Chan, J. Y. C., Chan, T. K., Kwok, T. C. Y., Wong, S. Y. S., Lee, A. T. C., & Tsoi, K. K. F. (2020). Cognitive training interventions and depression in mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa063

Vancouver

Chan JYC, Chan TK, Kwok TCY, Wong SYS, Lee ATC, Tsoi KKF. Cognitive training interventions and depression in mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Age and ageing. 2020. doi:10.1093/ageing/afaa063. PMID: 32378715.

BibTeX

@article{chan2020-32378715,
  author  = {Chan, J. Y. C. and Chan, T. K. and Kwok, T. C. Y. and Wong, S. Y. S. and Lee, A. T. C. and Tsoi, K. K. F.},
  title   = {{Cognitive training interventions and depression in mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials}},
  journal = {Age and ageing},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1093/ageing/afaa063},
  pmid    = {32378715},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa063}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →