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 67 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia result in cognitive decline which can negatively impact everyday functional abilities and quality of life. Virtual reality (VR) interventions could benefit the cognitive abilities of people with MCI and dementia, but evidence is inconclusive. Objective To investigate the efficacy of VR training on global and domain-specific cognition, activities of daily living and quality of life. To explore the influence of priori moderators (e.g., immersion type, training type) on the effects of VR training. Adverse effects of VR training were also considered. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted on all major databases for randomized control trial studies. Two separate meta-analyses were performed on studies with people with MCI and dementia. Results Sixteen studies with people with MCI and four studies with people with dementia were included in each meta-analysis. Results showed moderate to large effects of VR training on global cognition, attention, memory, and construction and motor performance in people with MCI. Immersion and training type were found to be significant moderators of the effect of VR training on global cognition. For people with dementia, results showed moderate to large improvements after VR training on global cognition, memory, and executive function, but a subgroup analysis was not possible. Conclusion Our findings suggest that VR training is an effective treatment for both people with MCI and dementia. These results contribute to the establishment of practical guidelines for VR interventions for patients with cognitive decline.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 67/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 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. 39 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 67 of 100. Total 67 of 100.39 of the 58 points we could judge = 67 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
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 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 35811514)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 39 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total 67 / 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

Papaioannou, T., Voinescu, A., Petrini, K., & Stanton Fraser, D. (2022). Efficacy and Moderators of Virtual Reality for Cognitive Training in People with Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210672

Vancouver

Papaioannou T, Voinescu A, Petrini K, Stanton Fraser D. Efficacy and Moderators of Virtual Reality for Cognitive Training in People with Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2022. doi:10.3233/jad-210672. PMID: 35811514.

BibTeX

@article{papaioannou2022-35811514,
  author  = {Papaioannou, T. and Voinescu, A. and Petrini, K. and Stanton Fraser, D.},
  title   = {{Efficacy and Moderators of Virtual Reality for Cognitive Training in People with Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-210672},
  pmid    = {35811514},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210672}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →