Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Computer-based cognitive interventions for mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older adults: protocol for a systematic review of published studies and meta-analysis
Al Mahmud A, Slikboer R, Stargatt J, Bhar S.. Systematic reviews, 2019-09-06
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background A growing number of older adults experience mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Recent technological advances allow for traditional cognitive interventions to be administered via computers and other devices. The aim of the proposed systematic review and meta-analyses is to determine the efficacy of computerised cognitive interventions for MCI and dementia in older adults. Methods We will systematically search electronic databases and reference lists to identify randomised controlled trials. We will include studies that examine the use of computer-based cognitive interventions for adults aged over 60 with MCI or dementia. Primarily outcomes are global and domain-specific cognitive function. Secondary outcomes are attitudes (usability, understandability, acceptability of the intervention), mood and quality of life. Risk of bias will be assessed. Finally, the summary effect sizes will be reported. Discussion This systematic review will summarise existing high-quality primary studies on computerised-cognitive interventions for MCI and dementia. Results from this review will provide the basis for future research in developing computer-based interventions for this population. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050236.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Al Mahmud, A., Slikboer, R., Stargatt, J., & Bhar, S. (2019). Computer-based cognitive interventions for mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older adults: protocol for a systematic review of published studies and meta-analysis. Systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1146-x
Vancouver
Al Mahmud A, Slikboer R, Stargatt J, Bhar S. Computer-based cognitive interventions for mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older adults: protocol for a systematic review of published studies and meta-analysis. Systematic reviews. 2019. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1146-x. PMID: 31492180.
BibTeX
@article{almahmud2019-31492180,
author = {Al Mahmud, A. and Slikboer, R. and Stargatt, J. and Bhar, S.},
title = {{Computer-based cognitive interventions for mild cognitive impairment and dementia in older adults: protocol for a systematic review of published studies and meta-analysis}},
journal = {Systematic reviews},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1186/s13643-019-1146-x},
pmid = {31492180},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1146-x}
}
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 from this review will provide the basis for future research in developing computer-based interventions for this population.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Systematic reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 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 31492180) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “protocol”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “protocol”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.