Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Effects of the online computerized cognitive training program BEYNEX on the cognitive tests of individuals with subjective cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease on rivastigmine therapy
Çinar N, Şahiner TAH.. Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2020-02-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background/aim Clinical trials conducted on the efficacy of computerized cognitive training (CCT) programs have not led to any important breakthroughs. CCT is a safe and inexpensive approach, but its efficacy in patients on rivastigmine therapy has not been evaluated. This study aims to compare effects of CCT and examines rivastigmine to determine whether CCT has any further contributions to make. Materials and methods Sixty individuals with subjective memory complaint (SCI) and 60 individuals with early stage Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) were subjected to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Cambridge Cognition (CANTAB tests: MOT, PRM, DMS, SWM, PAL, RTI), and Bayer-ADL. After screening patients who were diagnosed with AD, we started rivastigmine patch treatment (10 cm2 = 9.5 mg). The SCI and AD groups were randomly divided, and one each of the SCI and AD groups were accessed using BEYNEX, a web-based program. After a minimum of at least 1200 min of use, the diagnostic tests were repeated. Results The AD groups’ MoCA scores of the BEYNEX-practicing group demonstrated meaningfully increase, whereas they decreased in the control group, and the Bayer-ADL scores indicated improvement in ADL. The CANTAB tests both in SCI and AD and in groups using BEYNEX showed positive improvement in MOT, DMS, and PAL data. Conclusion This study is a rare example that focuses on both groups with SCI and AD. The efficacy of CCT varies across cognitive domains and shows significant efficacy for AD but small improvements in cognitively healthy older adults. In future studies, integration with a smart learning algorithm may lead to interesting observations on which parameters are more sensitive to change under long-term use of CCT in a large number of subjects.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Çinar, N., & Şahiner, T. A. H. (2020). Effects of the online computerized cognitive training program BEYNEX on the cognitive tests of individuals with subjective cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease on rivastigmine therapy. Turkish journal of medical sciences. https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1905-244
Vancouver
Çinar N, Şahiner TAH. Effects of the online computerized cognitive training program BEYNEX on the cognitive tests of individuals with subjective cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease on rivastigmine therapy. Turkish journal of medical sciences. 2020. doi:10.3906/sag-1905-244. PMID: 31887854.
BibTeX
@article{cinar2020-31887854,
author = {Çinar, N. and Şahiner, T. A. H.},
title = {{Effects of the online computerized cognitive training program BEYNEX on the cognitive tests of individuals with subjective cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease on rivastigmine therapy}},
journal = {Turkish journal of medical sciences},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3906/sag-1905-244},
pmid = {31887854},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1905-244}
}
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
- Results The AD groups’ MoCA scores of the BEYNEX-practicing group demonstrated meaningfully increase, whereas they decreased in the control group, and the Bayer-ADL scores indicated improvement in ADL.
- The efficacy of CCT varies across cognitive domains and shows significant efficacy for AD but small improvements in cognitively healthy older adults.
Study details
- Participants60
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Turkish journal of medical sciences) |
| 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 | 2020 — 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 | 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 31887854) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 “subjective-cognitive”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “subjective-cognitive”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.