Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Doctor, Should I Use Computer Games to Prevent Dementia?
Deirdre M O'Shea, Liselotte De Wit, Glenn E Smith. Clinical gerontologist, 2017-10-11
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Commercial advertising of computerized "brain games" may result in clinicians being asked whether brain games prevent dementia. To address this question, we conducted a review of computerized cognitive training (CCT) interventions in older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Studies were identified using a PubMed and PSYCinfo search for review articles. Within 11 review articles we identified 15 unique studies. Nine of these studies used commercially available "brain games" as their primary CCT intervention. Nine of 12 studies that examined the effect of CCT on episodic memory performance showed significant improvements in this domain. Furthermore, four of six studies that examined mood and or anxiety showed improvements in these domains following a CCT intervention. While more than double the amount of time was spent on the training that used commercially available "brain games" versus those designed by investigators, there were no differences in outcomes. Overall, it appears that "brain games" may modestly benefit aspects of cognition and aspects of mood in patients presenting with MCI. However, there is no direct evidence from the studies presented here that "brain games"/CCT can prevent dementia. We present recommendations to consider when discussing "brain games" with persons with MCI.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
O'Shea, D. M., De Wit, L., & Smith, G. E. (2019). Doctor, Should I Use Computer Games to Prevent Dementia? Clinical gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2017.1370057
Vancouver
O'Shea DM, De Wit L, Smith GE. Doctor, Should I Use Computer Games to Prevent Dementia? Clinical gerontologist. 2019. doi:10.1080/07317115.2017.1370057. PMID: 29020530.
BibTeX
@article{oshea2019-29020530,
author = {O'Shea, Deirdre M and De Wit, Liselotte and Smith, Glenn E},
title = {{Doctor, Should I Use Computer Games to Prevent Dementia?}},
journal = {Clinical gerontologist},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1080/07317115.2017.1370057},
pmid = {29020530},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2017.1370057}
}
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.
Key findings
- Commercial advertising of computerized "brain games" may result in clinicians being asked whether brain games prevent dementia.
- Nine of 12 studies that examined the effect of CCT on episodic memory performance showed significant improvements in this domain.
- While more than double the amount of time was spent on the training that used commercially available "brain games" versus those designed by investigators, there were no differences in outcomes.
- Overall, it appears that "brain games" may modestly benefit aspects of cognition and aspects of mood in patients presenting with MCI.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical gerontologist) |
| 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 | 2019 — 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 29020530) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.