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.

71/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Mild cognitive impairment

Reviewed as evidence on: Cognitive speed-of-processing training and dementia incidence 20 years later 2 studies (what the news said). Being listed means the study bears on the question, not that it agrees with the news.

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which cognitive training via interactive computerised technology was compared with an active or inactive control intervention. We used the GRADE approach to describe the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. Main results Eight RCTs with a total of 660 participants met review inclusion criteria. Overall, our ability to draw conclusions was hampered by very low-quality evidence. Almost all results were very imprecise; there were also problems related to risk of bias, inconsistency between trials, and indirectness of the evidence.No trial provided data on incident dementia. Therefore, we were unable to draw any conclusions about this outcome.Due to very low quality of evidence, we were also unable to determine whether there was any effect of CCT compared to active control on our secondary outcomes of episodic memory, working memory, executive function, depression, functional performance, and mortality. We found low-quality evidence suggesting that there is probably no effect on speed of processing (SMD 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to 0.56; 2 studies; 119 participants), verbal fluency (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.44; 3 studies; 150 participants), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.40, 95% CI -1.85 to 2.65; 1 study; 19 participants).When CCT was compared with inactive control, we obtained data on five secondary outcomes, including episodic memory, executive function, verbal fluency, depression, and functional performance. We found very low-quality evidence; therefore, we were unable to draw any conclusions about these outcomes. Small numbers of trials, small samples, risk of bias, inconsistency between trials, and highly imprecise results mean that it is not possible to derive any implications for clinical practice, despite some observed large effect sizes from individual studies. Direct adverse events are unlikely to occur, although the time and sometimes the money involved in computerised cognitive training programmes may represent significant burdens.

Key findings

Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which cognitive training via interactive computerised technology was compared with an active or inactive control intervention.
We used the GRADE approach to describe the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.
Main results Eight RCTs with a total of 660 participants met review inclusion criteria.
Overall, our ability to draw conclusions was hampered by very low-quality evidence.
Almost all results were very imprecise; there were also problems related to risk of bias, inconsistency between trials, and indirectness of the evidence.No trial provided data on incident dementia.

Why it matters

This review of eight randomized trials with 660 participants found very low-quality evidence, and no trial reported data on incident dementia, so no conclusions could be drawn about whether computerized cognitive training prevents dementia. There was low-quality evidence suggesting probably no effect on speed of processing, verbal fluency or quality of life, so this review does not support computerized cognitive training as a way to prevent dementia.

Study details

Participants660
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 71/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: journal h-index 468 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	660 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	5 / 7	Cited 169 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	18.8 citations a year over 9 year(s) since 2019
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 12.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 66 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Anne WS Rutjes: h-index 69 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	UNSW Sydney: institution h-index 1,101 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 8 institution(s) in 6 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30864747)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	71 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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 7 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., Vernooij, R. W., Di Nisio, M., Karim, S., March, E., Martínez, G., et al. (2019). Computerised cognitive training for preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012279.pub2

Vancouver

Gates NJ, Vernooij RW, Di Nisio M, Karim S, March E, Martínez G, et al. Computerised cognitive training for preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012279.pub2. PMID: 30864747.

BibTeX

@article{gates2019-30864747,
  author  = {Gates, N. J. and Vernooij, R. W. and Di Nisio, M. and Karim, S. and March, E. and Martínez, G. and Rutjes, A. W.},
  title   = {{Computerised cognitive training for preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1002/14651858.cd012279.pub2},
  pmid    = {30864747},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012279.pub2}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 34.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Mild cognitive impairment

Also tagged “speed-of-processing-training-and-dementia”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “speed-of-processing-training-and-dementia”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Mild cognitive impairment

See all studies in Mild cognitive impairment →