Home › Research › Prevention trials
Efficacy of a cognitive intervention program in patients with mild cognitive impairment
Rojas GJ, Villar V, Iturry M, Harris P, Serrano CM, Herrera JA, Allegri RF.. International psychogeriatrics, 2013-02-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transitional state between normal aging and dementia. Identifying this condition would allow early interventions that may reduce the rate of progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD). We examined the efficacy of a six-month cognitive intervention program (CIP) in patients with MCI and to assess patients' condition at one-year follow-up. Methods Forty-six MCI participants assessed with neuropsychological, neurological, neuropsychiatry, and functional procedures were included in this study and followed up during a year. The sample was randomized into two subgroups: 24 participants (the "trained group") underwent the CIP during six months while 22 (control group) received no treatment. Sixteen participants dropped out of the study. The intervention focused on teaching cognitive strategies, cognitive training, and use of external aids, in sessions of two hours, twice per week for six months. Cognitive and functional measures were used as primary outcome and all were followed up at one year. Results The intervention effect (mean change from baseline) was significant (p < 0.05) on the Mini-Mental State Examination (1.74), the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (0.14), the Boston Naming Test (2.92), block design (-13.66), matrix reasoning (-3.07), and semantic fluency (-3.071) tasks. Four patients (one trained and three controls) progressed to dementia after one year of follow-up. Conclusions These results suggest that persons with MCI can improve their performance on cognitive and functional measures when provided with early cognitive training and it could persist in a long-term follow-up.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rojas, G. J., Villar, V., Iturry, M., Harris, P., Serrano, C. M., Herrera, J. A., et al. (2013). Efficacy of a cognitive intervention program in patients with mild cognitive impairment. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610213000045
Vancouver
Rojas GJ, Villar V, Iturry M, Harris P, Serrano CM, Herrera JA, et al. Efficacy of a cognitive intervention program in patients with mild cognitive impairment. International psychogeriatrics. 2013. doi:10.1017/s1041610213000045. PMID: 23414646.
BibTeX
@article{rojas2013-23414646,
author = {Rojas, G. J. and Villar, V. and Iturry, M. and Harris, P. and Serrano, C. M. and Herrera, J. A. and Allegri, R. F.},
title = {{Efficacy of a cognitive intervention program in patients with mild cognitive impairment}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610213000045},
pmid = {23414646},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610213000045}
}
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 The intervention effect (mean change from baseline) was significant (p < 0.05) on the Mini-Mental State Examination (1.74), the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (0.14), the Boston Naming Test (2.92), block design (-13.66), matrix reasoning (-3.07), and semantic fluency (-3.071) tasks.
- Conclusions These results suggest that persons with MCI can improve their performance on cognitive and functional measures when provided with early cognitive training and it could persist in a long-term follow-up.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants24
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 24 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 23414646) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.