Home › Research › Prevention trials
Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers
Lampit A, Hallock H, Valenzuela M.. PLoS medicine, 2014-11-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The overall effect size (Hedges' g, random effects model) for CCT versus control was small and statistically significant, g = 0.22 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.29). No significant effects were found for executive functions and attention. Moderator analyses revealed that home-based administration was ineffective compared to group-based training, and that more than three training sessions per week was ineffective versus three or fewer. These results are limited to healthy older adults, and do not address the durability of training effects.
Key findings
- The overall effect size (Hedges' g, random effects model) for CCT versus control was small and statistically significant, g = 0.22 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.29).
- No significant effects were found for executive functions and attention.
- Moderator analyses revealed that home-based administration was ineffective compared to group-based training, and that more than three training sessions per week was ineffective versus three or fewer.
- These results are limited to healthy older adults, and do not address the durability of training effects.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants4,885
- Effect size29.92%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 81 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS 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 (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 | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 4,885 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 25405755) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 47 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 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
Lampit, A., Hallock, H., & Valenzuela, M. (2014). Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756
Vancouver
Lampit A, Hallock H, Valenzuela M. Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS medicine. 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756. PMID: 25405755.
BibTeX
@article{lampit2014-25405755,
author = {Lampit, A. and Hallock, H. and Valenzuela, M.},
title = {{Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers}},
journal = {PLoS medicine},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756},
pmid = {25405755},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756}
}