Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Differential effects of a computerized cognitive stimulation program on older adults with mild cognitive impairment according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities
Djabelkhir-Jemmi L, Wu YH, Boubaya M, Marlats F, Lewis M, Vidal JS, Lenoir H, Charlieux B et al.. Clinical interventions in aging, 2018-08-30
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective This study aimed to explore whether a computerized cognitive stimulation program (CCS) induced differential effects in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities (WMH), which are associated with cognitive impairment and increased risk of progression to Alzheimer's disease because of the damage they cause to cortical and subcortical networks. Patients and methods Twenty-nine MCI patients with no or little WMH (MCI-non-WMH) and 22 MCI patients with moderate or severe WMH (MCI-WMH) attended a 24-session CCS program (two sessions per week for a duration of 3 months) focused on executive functions, attention, and processing speed. Cognitive and psychosocial assessments were performed at baseline, postintervention, and 3 months after the intervention. Results Both groups improved on several cognitive measures after the intervention. However, the MCI-non-WMH group improved on a higher number of cognitive measures than the MCI-WMH group. At postintervention assessment, CCS had a more beneficial effect on the MCI-non-WMH group than on the MCI-WMH group with regard to improving categorical fluency (4.6±6.8 vs 0.4±6.4; effect size=0.37; p =0.002). During the 3-month follow-up assessment, significantly higher score improvements were observed in the MCI-non-WMH group for the paired-associate learning test (6.4±3 vs 4.7±3.5 points; effect size=0.43; p =0.005) as well as categorical fluency (3.8±7.8 vs -0.7±6 points; effect size=0.55; p =0.0003). Conclusions These findings suggest that WMH severity was related to cognitive improvement induced by a CCS program and highlight the importance of considering WMH in interventional studies on subjects with MCI.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Djabelkhir-Jemmi, L., Wu, Y. H., Boubaya, M., Marlats, F., Lewis, M., Vidal, J. S., et al. (2018). Differential effects of a computerized cognitive stimulation program on older adults with mild cognitive impairment according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities. Clinical interventions in aging. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s152225
Vancouver
Djabelkhir-Jemmi L, Wu YH, Boubaya M, Marlats F, Lewis M, Vidal JS, et al. Differential effects of a computerized cognitive stimulation program on older adults with mild cognitive impairment according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities. Clinical interventions in aging. 2018. doi:10.2147/cia.s152225. PMID: 30214174.
BibTeX
@article{djabelkhirjemmi2018-30214174,
author = {Djabelkhir-Jemmi, L. and Wu, Y. H. and Boubaya, M. and Marlats, F. and Lewis, M. and Vidal, J. S. and Lenoir, H. and Charlieux, B. and others},
title = {{Differential effects of a computerized cognitive stimulation program on older adults with mild cognitive impairment according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities}},
journal = {Clinical interventions in aging},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.2147/cia.s152225},
pmid = {30214174},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s152225}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Objective This study aimed to explore whether a computerized cognitive stimulation program (CCS) induced differential effects in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities (WMH), which are associated with cognitive impairment and increased risk of progression to Alzheimer's disease because of the damage they cause to cortical and subcortical networks.
- Results Both groups improved on several cognitive measures after the intervention.
- During the 3-month follow-up assessment, significantly higher score improvements were observed in the MCI-non-WMH group for the paired-associate learning test (6.4±3 vs 4.7±3.5 points; effect size=0.43; p =0.005) as well as categorical fluency (3.8±7.8 vs -0.7±6 points; effect size=0.55; p =0.0003).
- Conclusions These findings suggest that WMH severity was related to cognitive improvement induced by a CCS program and highlight the importance of considering WMH in interventional studies on subjects with MCI.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical interventions in aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 30214174) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 “according”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “according”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.