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.

66/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Importance Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system characterized by relapses and a progressive course that may lead to accumulation of physical and cognitive disability. Cognitive training interventions seem to improve the cognitive performance of MS patients. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to quantitatively investigate the effect of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation on the neuropsychological performance of patients with MS. Methods We performed a systematic review of the PubMed database to identify available studies that performed computer-based cognitive training in MS patients. Studies should have reported pre- and post-cognitive training neuropsychological tests scores and included both intervention and placebo/no-intervention MS groups. We analyzed the effect of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation on individual neuropsychological tests, on specific functional domains, and on overall cognition performance. The effect-size of cognitive training pre- and post-treatment compared to placebo/ no-intervention was estimated using the standardized mean difference (SMD). The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a Z test by comparing the final values. Baseline between-group differences in selected outcomes were estimated with ANOVA. Results In total, 9 studies fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and were inserted in the quantitative analysis. Computer-based cognitive training was found to improve the performance in the memory domain of MS patients compared to control interventions (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI 0.01-0.43; p = 0.04). Moreover, in the subgroup analysis, cognitive training demonstrated significant effects in Selective Reminding Test (SRT) delay memory (SMD, 0.58; 95% CI 0.29-0.87; p < 0.001). Conclusions The present meta-analysis revealed a significant effect for computer-based cognitive training on the performance of the memory domain of patients with MS. This finding may have significant implications in the current treatment practice when cognitive decline is detected in MS patients.

Key findings

We analyzed the effect of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation on individual neuropsychological tests, on specific functional domains, and on overall cognition performance.
The effect-size of cognitive training pre- and post-treatment compared to placebo/ no-intervention was estimated using the standardized mean difference (SMD).
Results In total, 9 studies fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and were inserted in the quantitative analysis.
Computer-based cognitive training was found to improve the performance in the memory domain of MS patients compared to control interventions (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI 0.01-0.43; p = 0.04).
Moreover, in the subgroup analysis, cognitive training demonstrated significant effects in Selective Reminding Test (SRT) delay memory (SMD, 0.58; 95% CI 0.29-0.87; p < 0.001).

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 66/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Multiple sclerosis and related disorders)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question
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	2018 — within 10 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 29306740)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	38 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total	66 / 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. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Dardiotis, E., Nousia, A., Siokas, V., Tsouris, Z., Andravizou, A., Mentis, A. A., et al. (2018). Efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in neuropsychological performance of patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple sclerosis and related disorders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.017

Vancouver

Dardiotis E, Nousia A, Siokas V, Tsouris Z, Andravizou A, Mentis AA, et al. Efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in neuropsychological performance of patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple sclerosis and related disorders. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.017. PMID: 29306740.

BibTeX

@article{dardiotis2018-29306740,
  author  = {Dardiotis, E. and Nousia, A. and Siokas, V. and Tsouris, Z. and Andravizou, A. and Mentis, A. A. and Florou, D. and Messinis, L. and others},
  title   = {{Efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in neuropsychological performance of patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Multiple sclerosis and related disorders},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.017},
  pmid    = {29306740},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.017}
}

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.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →