Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Does computerized cognitive training improve diabetes self-management and cognition? A randomized control trial of middle-aged and older veterans with type 2 diabetes
Silverman JM, Zhu CW, Schmeidler J, Lee PG, Alexander NB, Guerrero-Berroa E, Beeri MS, West RK et al.. Diabetes research and clinical practice, 2022-11-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Aims This randomized control trial compared an adaptive computerized cognitive training intervention with a non-adaptive version. The primary hypothesis predicted better diabetes self-management in type 2 diabetes patients at 6 months post-intervention than baseline in the adaptive arm, with seven secondary outcomes. Methods Intent-to-treat analysis of veterans without dementia aged 55+ from the Bronx, NY and Ann Arbor, MI (N = 90/per arm) used linear mixed model analyses. Results Contrary to the hypothesis, only memory showed more improvement in the adaptive arm (p < 0.01). Post-hoc analyses combined the two arms; self-management improved at six-months post-intervention (p < 0.001). Memory, executive functions/attention, prospective memory, diastolic blood pressure, and systolic blood pressure improved (p < 0.05); hemoglobin A1c and medication adherence did not improve significantly. Conclusions The adaptive computerized cognitive training was not substantially better than non-adaptive, but may improve memory. Post-hoc results for the combined arms suggest computer-related activities may improve diabetes self-management and other outcomes for middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes. Practice effects or awareness of being studied cannot be ruled out.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Silverman, J. M., Zhu, C. W., Schmeidler, J., Lee, P. G., Alexander, N. B., Guerrero-Berroa, E., et al. (2023). Does computerized cognitive training improve diabetes self-management and cognition? A randomized control trial of middle-aged and older veterans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes research and clinical practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110149
Vancouver
Silverman JM, Zhu CW, Schmeidler J, Lee PG, Alexander NB, Guerrero-Berroa E, et al. Does computerized cognitive training improve diabetes self-management and cognition? A randomized control trial of middle-aged and older veterans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes research and clinical practice. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110149. PMID: 36427629.
BibTeX
@article{silverman2023-36427629,
author = {Silverman, J. M. and Zhu, C. W. and Schmeidler, J. and Lee, P. G. and Alexander, N. B. and Guerrero-Berroa, E. and Beeri, M. S. and West, R. K. and others},
title = {{Does computerized cognitive training improve diabetes self-management and cognition? A randomized control trial of middle-aged and older veterans with type 2 diabetes}},
journal = {Diabetes research and clinical practice},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110149},
pmid = {36427629},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110149}
}
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
- Results Contrary to the hypothesis, only memory showed more improvement in the adaptive arm (p < 0.01).
- Memory, executive functions/attention, prospective memory, diastolic blood pressure, and systolic blood pressure improved (p < 0.05); hemoglobin A1c and medication adherence did not improve significantly.
- Post-hoc results for the combined arms suggest computer-related activities may improve diabetes self-management and other outcomes for middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes.
Study details
- Study designpost-hoc analysis
- Participants90
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Diabetes research and clinical practice) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 90 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 | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 36427629) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 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 “veterans”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “veterans”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.