Home › Research › Prevention trials
Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Training in Delaying Cognitive Function Decline in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Li R, Geng J, Yang R, Ge Y, Hesketh T.. Journal of medical Internet research, 2022-10-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background With no current cure for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), delaying its progression could significantly reduce the disease burden and improve the quality of life for patients with MCI. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) has recently become a potential instrument for improvement of cognition. However, the evidence for its effectiveness remains limited. Objective This systematic review aims to (1) analyze the efficacy of CCT on cognitive impairment or cognitive decline in patients with MCI and (2) analyze the relationship between the characteristics of CCT interventions and cognition-related health outcomes. Methods A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Full texts of randomized controlled trials of CCT interventions in adults with MCI and published in English language journals between 2010 and 2021 were included. Overall global cognitive function and domain-specific cognition were pooled using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the reasons for heterogeneity and to test the robustness of the results. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify the relationship between the characteristics of CCT interventions and cognition-related effectiveness. Results A total of 18 studies with 1059 participants were included in this review. According to the meta-analysis, CCT intervention provided a significant but small increase in global cognitive function compared to that in the global cognitive function of the control groups (standardized mean difference=0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.73; I 2 =38%). CCT intervention also resulted in a marginal improvement in domain-specific cognition compared to that in the control groups, with moderate heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses showed consistent improvement in global cognitive behavior in the CCT intervention groups. Conclusions This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. Considering the relatively small sample size and the short treatment duration in all the included studies, more comprehensive trials are needed to quantify both the impact of CCT on cognitive decline, especially in the longer term, and to establish whether CCT should be recommended for use in clinical practice. Trial registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021278884; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278884.
Key findings
- Background With no current cure for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), delaying its progression could significantly reduce the disease burden and improve the quality of life for patients with MCI.
- Overall global cognitive function and domain-specific cognition were pooled using a random-effects model.
- Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the reasons for heterogeneity and to test the robustness of the results.
- Results A total of 18 studies with 1059 participants were included in this review.
- According to the meta-analysis, CCT intervention provided a significant but small increase in global cognitive function compared to that in the global cognitive function of the control groups (standardized mean difference=0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.73; I 2 =38%).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants1,059
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 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 (Journal of medical Internet research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,059 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 | 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 36301590) |
| 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
Li, R., Geng, J., Yang, R., Ge, Y., & Hesketh, T. (2022). Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Training in Delaying Cognitive Function Decline in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research. https://doi.org/10.2196/38624
Vancouver
Li R, Geng J, Yang R, Ge Y, Hesketh T. Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Training in Delaying Cognitive Function Decline in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research. 2022. doi:10.2196/38624. PMID: 36301590.
BibTeX
@article{li2022-36301590,
author = {Li, R. and Geng, J. and Yang, R. and Ge, Y. and Hesketh, T.},
title = {{Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Training in Delaying Cognitive Function Decline in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis}},
journal = {Journal of medical Internet research},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.2196/38624},
pmid = {36301590},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/38624}
}