Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Effects of brain training on brain blood flow (The Cognition and Flow Study-CogFlowS): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of cognitive training in dementia
Beishon L, Evley R, Panerai RB, Subramaniam H, Mukaetova-Ladinska E, Robinson T, Haunton V.. BMJ open, 2019-05-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Cognitive training is an emerging non-pharmacological treatment to improve cognitive and physical function in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer's disease (AD). Abnormal brain blood flow is a key process in the development of cognitive decline. However, no studies have explored the effects of cognitive training on brain blood flow in dementia. The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility for a large-scale, randomised controlled trial of cognitive training in healthy older adults (HC), MCI and early AD. Methods and analysis This study will recruit 60 participants, in three subgroups of 20 (MCI, HC, AD), from primary, secondary and community services. Participants will be randomised to a 12-week computerised cognitive training programme (five × 30 min sessions per week), or waiting-list control. Participants will undergo baseline and follow-up assessments of: mood, cognition, quality of life and activities of daily living. Cerebral blood flow will be measured at rest and during task activation (pretraining and post-training) by bilateral transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, alongside heart rate (3-lead ECG), end-tidal CO 2 (capnography) and beat-to-beat blood pressure (Finometer). Participants will be offered to join a focus group or semistructured interview to explore barriers and facilitators to cognitive training in patients with dementia. Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis, and data will be integrated using mixed methods matrices. Ethics and dissemination Bradford Leeds Research Ethics committee awarded a favourable opinion (18/YH/0396). Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at national and international conferences on ageing and dementia. Trials registration number NCT03656107; Pre-results.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Beishon, L., Evley, R., Panerai, R. B., Subramaniam, H., Mukaetova-Ladinska, E., Robinson, T., et al. (2019). Effects of brain training on brain blood flow (The Cognition and Flow Study-CogFlowS): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of cognitive training in dementia. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027817
Vancouver
Beishon L, Evley R, Panerai RB, Subramaniam H, Mukaetova-Ladinska E, Robinson T, et al. Effects of brain training on brain blood flow (The Cognition and Flow Study-CogFlowS): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of cognitive training in dementia. BMJ open. 2019. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027817. PMID: 31122994.
BibTeX
@article{beishon2019-31122994,
author = {Beishon, L. and Evley, R. and Panerai, R. B. and Subramaniam, H. and Mukaetova-Ladinska, E. and Robinson, T. and Haunton, V.},
title = {{Effects of brain training on brain blood flow (The Cognition and Flow Study-CogFlowS): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of cognitive training in dementia}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027817},
pmid = {31122994},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027817}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at national and international conferences on ageing and dementia.
- Trials registration number NCT03656107; Pre-results.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants60
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 60 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 31122994) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “blood-flow”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-flow”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.