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.

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 74 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective This study examines the short-term and long-term effects of a cognitive training (CT) program in enhancing cognitive function of older people with subjective memory complaints. Methods A single-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial was carried out in a sample of 223 older adults aged 65 years or above with subjective memory complaints in Hong Kong. They were randomly assigned to either receive CT (intervention group, N = 111) or attend health-related educational lectures only (control group, N = 112). Participants' cognitive abilities were assessed by the Chinese version of Mattis Dementia Rating Scale at baseline, immediately after the training, and nine months after the training. Results Significant interaction effect of CT and education was detected on participants' CT gains at both T2 (F(2, 200) = 6.329, p = 0.002, η(2) = 0.060) and T3 (F(2, 189) = 3.294, p = 0.039, η(2) = 0.034). Conclusions Cognitive training was effective in enhancing the overall cognitive functioning of less educated older adults with subjective memory complaints. The positive effect was durable for at least nine months in two cognitive areas, namely conceptualization and memory.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Kwok, T. C., Bai, X., Li, J. C., Ho, F. K., & Lee, T. M. (2013). Effectiveness of cognitive training in Chinese older people with subjective cognitive complaints: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3812

Vancouver

Kwok TC, Bai X, Li JC, Ho FK, Lee TM. Effectiveness of cognitive training in Chinese older people with subjective cognitive complaints: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2013. doi:10.1002/gps.3812. PMID: 22528470.

BibTeX

@article{kwok2013-22528470,
  author  = {Kwok, T. C. and Bai, X. and Li, J. C. and Ho, F. K. and Lee, T. M.},
  title   = {{Effectiveness of cognitive training in Chinese older people with subjective cognitive complaints: a randomized placebo-controlled trial}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.1002/gps.3812},
  pmid    = {22528470},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3812}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 2 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 0 of 2. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
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 1 / 5 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 111 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 2 / 2 Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 22528470)
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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “controlled”

1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →