Home › Research › Prevention trials
[Efficacy of cognitive training programs based on new software technologies in patients with Alzheimer-type dementia]
Fernández-Calvo B, Rodríguez-Pérez R, Contador I, Rubio-Santorum A, Ramos F.. Psicothema, 2011-02-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The study aims to assess the efficacy of the Big Brain Academy (BBA), a computerized cognitive training program (CT) based on video games, compared to the Integrated Psychostimulation Program (IPP), a classical CT tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). A total of 45 patients with AD at the mild stage were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions. Two treatment groups were established, in which patients received either a stimulation program with BBA (EABB) or a traditional stimulation program (EAPI), based on paper-and-pencil tasks, for twelve weeks. A third group, the control group (EANT), did not receive any treatment during this period. The differential effectiveness of the programs was evaluated through pre-post design, considering neuropsychological, behavioral, and functional standard measures as outcome variables. The EABB group showed significantly slower rates of cognitive decline compared to the EAPI and EANT groups. Furthermore, the EABB group reported significantly greater decrease in depressive symptoms in comparison with the EAPI and EANT groups. The BBA program was more effective than IPP to reduce cognitive decline and depressive symptoms in patients with AD.
Key findings
- The study aims to assess the efficacy of the Big Brain Academy (BBA), a computerized cognitive training program (CT) based on video games, compared to the Integrated Psychostimulation Program (IPP), a classical CT tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).
- The EABB group showed significantly slower rates of cognitive decline compared to the EAPI and EANT groups.
- Furthermore, the EABB group reported significantly greater decrease in depressive symptoms in comparison with the EAPI and EANT groups.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants45
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 64/100
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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psicothema) |
| 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 | 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 | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 45 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 21266141) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Fernández-Calvo, B., Rodríguez-Pérez, R., Contador, I., Rubio-Santorum, A., & Ramos, F. (2011). [Efficacy of cognitive training programs based on new software technologies in patients with Alzheimer-type dementia]. Psicothema.
Vancouver
Fernández-Calvo B, Rodríguez-Pérez R, Contador I, Rubio-Santorum A, Ramos F. [Efficacy of cognitive training programs based on new software technologies in patients with Alzheimer-type dementia]. Psicothema. 2011. PMID: 21266141.
BibTeX
@article{fernandezcalvo2011-21266141,
author = {Fernández-Calvo, B. and Rodríguez-Pérez, R. and Contador, I. and Rubio-Santorum, A. and Ramos, F.},
title = {{[Efficacy of cognitive training programs based on new software technologies in patients with Alzheimer-type dementia]}},
journal = {Psicothema},
year = {2011},
pmid = {21266141}
}