Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Efficacy of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training (USMART) program among patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled crossover trial
Han JW, Son KL, Byun HJ, Ko JW, Kim K, Hong JW, Kim TH, Kim KW.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2017-06-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Spaced retrieval training (SRT) is a nonpharmacological intervention for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia that trains the learning and retention of target information by recalling it over increasingly long intervals. We recently developed the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training (USMART) program as a convenient, self-administered tablet-based SRT program. We also demonstrated the utility of USMART for improving memory in individuals with MCI through an open-label uncontrolled trial. Methods This study had an open-label, single-blind, randomized, controlled, two-period crossover design. Fifty patients with MCI were randomized into USMART-usual care and usual care-USMART treatment sequences. USMART was completed or usual care was provided biweekly over a 4-week treatment period with a 2-week washout period between treatment periods. Primary outcome measures included the Word List Memory Test, Word List Recall Test (WLRT), and Word List Recognition Test. Outcomes were measured at baseline, week 5, and week 11 by raters who were blinded to intervention type. An intention-to-treat analysis and linear mixed modeling were used. Results Of 50 randomized participants, 41 completed the study (18% dropout rate). The USMART group had larger improvements in WLRT score (effect size = 0.49, p = 0.031) than the usual care group. There were no significant differences in other primary or secondary measures between the USMART and usual care groups. Moreover, no USMART-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions The 4-week USMART modestly improved information retrieval in older people with MCI, and was well accepted with minimal technical support. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01688128 . Registered 12 September 2012.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Han, J. W., Son, K. L., Byun, H. J., Ko, J. W., Kim, K., Hong, J. W., et al. (2017). Efficacy of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training (USMART) program among patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-017-0264-8
Vancouver
Han JW, Son KL, Byun HJ, Ko JW, Kim K, Hong JW, et al. Efficacy of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training (USMART) program among patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2017. doi:10.1186/s13195-017-0264-8. PMID: 28587629.
BibTeX
@article{han2017-28587629,
author = {Han, J. W. and Son, K. L. and Byun, H. J. and Ko, J. W. and Kim, K. and Hong, J. W. and Kim, T. H. and Kim, K. W.},
title = {{Efficacy of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training (USMART) program among patients with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled crossover trial}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-017-0264-8},
pmid = {28587629},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-017-0264-8}
}
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 8 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
- We also demonstrated the utility of USMART for improving memory in individuals with MCI through an open-label uncontrolled trial.
- Results Of 50 randomized participants, 41 completed the study (18% dropout rate).
- There were no significant differences in other primary or secondary measures between the USMART and usual care groups.
Study details
- Study designopen-label trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 28587629) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.