Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Computerised cognitive remediation to enhance mobility in older adults: a single-blind, single-centre, randomised trial
Joe Verghese, Jeannette R Mahoney, Emmeline Ayers, Anne Ambrose, Cuiling Wang, Roee Holtzer. The lancet. Healthy longevity, 2021-09-02
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. After randomisation, 11 (3%) patients were diagnosed with dementia. 372 (97%; 271 [73%] women) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The mean age of participants was 77·0 years [SD 5·6]). 183 (49·2%) participants were Black and 62 (16·7%) were Hispanic. 314 (93%) of the target 338 completers had finished the intervention when the trial was terminated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there were significant within-group improvements in both groups after the 8-week intervention, there was no significant difference in normal walking speed (-1·03 cm/s [SD 1·30]; 95% CI -3·60 to 1·54) and walking while talking conditions (0·59 cm/s [SD 1·61]; 95% CI -2·59 to 3·76) between the intervention and control groups. Similarly, within-group, but no between-group, differences were seen on executive function tests and physical function. There were no severe adverse events related to interventions. Computerised cognitive remediation improved walking in adults aged 70 years and older at high-risk for mobility disability, but improvements were not significantly greater compared with an active control. Although our findings corroborate the within-group improvements on cognition and mobility reported in previous pilot clinical trials, future studies are required to determine the optimal dose, frequency, intensity, and content of computerised cognitive remediation programmes. FUNDING: National Institute on Aging.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Verghese, J., Mahoney, J. R., Ayers, E., Ambrose, A., Wang, C., & Holtzer, R. (2021). Computerised cognitive remediation to enhance mobility in older adults: a single-blind, single-centre, randomised trial. The lancet. Healthy longevity. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00173-2
Vancouver
Verghese J, Mahoney JR, Ayers E, Ambrose A, Wang C, Holtzer R. Computerised cognitive remediation to enhance mobility in older adults: a single-blind, single-centre, randomised trial. The lancet. Healthy longevity. 2021. doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00173-2. PMID: 34522910.
BibTeX
@article{verghese2021-34522910,
author = {Verghese, Joe and Mahoney, Jeannette R and Ayers, Emmeline and Ambrose, Anne and Wang, Cuiling and Holtzer, Roee},
title = {{Computerised cognitive remediation to enhance mobility in older adults: a single-blind, single-centre, randomised trial}},
journal = {The lancet. Healthy longevity},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00173-2},
pmid = {34522910},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00173-2}
}
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
- Between March 1, 2016, and March 12, 2020, 383 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention or control group.
- After randomisation, 11 (3%) patients were diagnosed with dementia. 372 (97%; 271 [73%] women) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
- The mean age of participants was 77·0 years [SD 5·6]). 183 (49·2%) participants were Black and 62 (16·7%) were Hispanic. 314 (93%) of the target 338 completers had finished the intervention when the trial was terminated due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Although there were significant within-group improvements in both groups after the 8-week intervention, there was no significant difference in normal walking speed (-1·03 cm/s [SD 1·30]; 95% CI -3·60 to 1·54) and walking while talking conditions (0·59 cm/s [SD 1·61]; 95% CI -2·59 to 3·76) between the intervention and control groups.
- Similarly, within-group, but no between-group, differences were seen on executive function tests and physical function.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants383
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 84/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 84 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The lancet. Healthy longevity) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 383 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 | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| 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 34522910) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 47 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 84 out of 100. |
| Total | 84 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.