Home › Research › Prevention trials
Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife
Gates NJ, Rutjes AW, Di Nisio M, Karim S, Chong LY, March E, Martínez G, Vernooij RW.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019-03-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Normal aging is associated with changes in cognitive function that are non-pathological and are not necessarily indicative of future neurocognitive disease. Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. Emerging evidence now suggests that subtle cognitive changes, detectable years before criteria for mild cognitive impairment are met, may be predictive of future dementia. Important for intervention and reduction in disease risk, research also suggests that engaging in stimulating mental activity throughout adulthood builds cognitive and brain reserve and reduces dementia risk. Experimental interventions adhered to the following criteria: intervention was any form of interactive computerised cognitive intervention - including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality - that involved repeated practice on standardised exercises of specified cognitive domain(s) for the purpose of enhancing cognitive function; duration of the intervention was at least 12 weeks; cognitive outcomes were measured; and cognitive training interventions were compared with active or inactive control interventions. Data collection and analysis For preliminary screening of search results, we used a 'crowd' method to identify RCTs. We used GRADE to describe the overall quality of the evidence. Main results We identified one eligible study that examined the effect of computerised cognitive training (CCT) in 6742 participants over 50 years of age, with training and follow-up duration of six months. We considered the study to be at high risk of attrition bias and the overall quality of the evidence to be low.Researchers provided no data on our primary outcome. Results indicate that there may be a small advantage for the CCT group for executive function (mean difference (MD) -1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.85 to -1.29; participants = 3994; low-quality evidence) and a very small advantage for the control group for working memory (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.15; participants = 5831; low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions We found low-quality evidence from only one study.
Key findings
- Background Normal aging is associated with changes in cognitive function that are non-pathological and are not necessarily indicative of future neurocognitive disease.
- Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia.
- Emerging evidence now suggests that subtle cognitive changes, detectable years before criteria for mild cognitive impairment are met, may be predictive of future dementia.
- Important for intervention and reduction in disease risk, research also suggests that engaging in stimulating mental activity throughout adulthood builds cognitive and brain reserve and reduces dementia risk.
- Experimental interventions adhered to the following criteria: intervention was any form of interactive computerised cognitive intervention - including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality - that involved repeated practice on standardised exercises of specified cognitive domain(s) for the purpose of enhancing cognitive function; duration of the intervention was at least 12 weeks; cognitive outcomes were measured; and cognitive training interventions were compared with active or inactive control interventions.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants6,742
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of 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 (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | 6,742 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 30864746) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Gates, N. J., Rutjes, A. W., Di Nisio, M., Karim, S., Chong, L. Y., March, E., et al. (2019). Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012278.pub2
Vancouver
Gates NJ, Rutjes AW, Di Nisio M, Karim S, Chong LY, March E, et al. Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012278.pub2. PMID: 30864746.
BibTeX
@article{gates2019-30864746,
author = {Gates, N. J. and Rutjes, A. W. and Di Nisio, M. and Karim, S. and Chong, L. Y. and March, E. and Martínez, G. and Vernooij, R. W.},
title = {{Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife}},
journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.cd012278.pub2},
pmid = {30864746},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012278.pub2}
}