alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Prevention trials

Computerized cognitive training for memory functions in mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chan ATC, Ip RTF, Tran JYS, Chan JYC, Tsoi KKF.. NPJ digital medicine, 2024-01-03

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 83 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. This meta-analysis evaluated the benefits of computerized cognitive training (CCT) on memory functions in individuals with MCI or dementia. The study was registered prospectively with PROSPERO under CRD42022363715 and received no funding. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO on Sept 19, 2022, and Google Scholar on May 9, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of CCT on memory outcomes in individuals with MCI or dementia. Mean differences and standard deviations of neuropsychological assessment scores were extracted to derive standardized mean differences. Our search identified 10,678 studies, of which 35 studies were included. Among 1489 participants with MCI, CCT showed improvements in verbal memory (SMD (95%CI) = 0.55 (0.35-0.74)), visual memory (0.36 (0.12-0.60)), and working memory (0.37 (0.10-0.64)). Supervised CCT showed improvements in verbal memory (0.72 (0.45-0.98)), visual memory (0.51 (0.22-0.79)), and working memory (0.33 (0.01-0.66)). Unsupervised CCT showed improvement in verbal memory (0.21 (0.04-0.38)) only. Among 371 participants with dementia, CCT showed improvement in verbal memory (0.64 (0.02-1.27)) only. Inconsistency due to heterogeneity (as indicated by I 2 values) is observed, which reduces our confidence in MCI outcomes to a moderate level and dementia outcomes to a low level. The results suggest that CCT is efficacious on various memory domains in individuals with MCI. Although the supervised approach showed greater effects, the unsupervised approach can improve verbal memory while allowing users to receive CCT at home without engaging as many healthcare resources.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

How this study scored 83/100
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 4 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 2 of 2. 48 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 83 of 100. Total 83 of 100.48 of the 58 points we could judge = 83 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 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 83 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NPJ digital medicine)
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
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,489 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 38172429)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 48 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 83 out of 100.
Total 83 / 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, A. T. C., Ip, R. T. F., Tran, J. Y. S., Chan, J. Y. C., & Tsoi, K. K. F. (2024). Computerized cognitive training for memory functions in mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ digital medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00987-5

Vancouver

Chan ATC, Ip RTF, Tran JYS, Chan JYC, Tsoi KKF. Computerized cognitive training for memory functions in mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ digital medicine. 2024. doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00987-5. PMID: 38172429.

BibTeX

@article{chan2024-38172429,
  author  = {Chan, A. T. C. and Ip, R. T. F. and Tran, J. Y. S. and Chan, J. Y. C. and Tsoi, K. K. F.},
  title   = {{Computerized cognitive training for memory functions in mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {NPJ digital medicine},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41746-023-00987-5},
  pmid    = {38172429},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00987-5}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →