Home › Research › Prevention trials
Immersive Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Intervention for the Improvement of Cognitive Function, Depression, and Perceived Stress in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: Pilot Pre-Post Study
Zhu K, Zhang Q, He B, Huang M, Lin R, Li H.. JMIR serious games, 2022-02-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results A total of 18 patients with MCI (mean age 82.94 [SD 5.44] years; 12 females) and 13 patients with MD (mean age 85.7 [SD 4.67] years, 10 females) participated in this pilot study. Both groups showed significant improvements in all cognitive function measurements (P<.001). The MD group had a significantly greater improvement in general cognitive function compared to the MCI group in Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Shape Trail Test, and Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhu, K., Zhang, Q., He, B., Huang, M., Lin, R., & Li, H. (2022). Immersive Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Intervention for the Improvement of Cognitive Function, Depression, and Perceived Stress in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: Pilot Pre-Post Study. JMIR serious games. https://doi.org/10.2196/32117
Vancouver
Zhu K, Zhang Q, He B, Huang M, Lin R, Li H. Immersive Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Intervention for the Improvement of Cognitive Function, Depression, and Perceived Stress in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: Pilot Pre-Post Study. JMIR serious games. 2022. doi:10.2196/32117. PMID: 35188466.
BibTeX
@article{zhu2022-35188466,
author = {Zhu, K. and Zhang, Q. and He, B. and Huang, M. and Lin, R. and Li, H.},
title = {{Immersive Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Intervention for the Improvement of Cognitive Function, Depression, and Perceived Stress in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: Pilot Pre-Post Study}},
journal = {JMIR serious games},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.2196/32117},
pmid = {35188466},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/32117}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results A total of 18 patients with MCI (mean age 82.94 [SD 5.44] years; 12 females) and 13 patients with MD (mean age 85.7 [SD 4.67] years, 10 females) participated in this pilot study.
- Both groups showed significant improvements in all cognitive function measurements (P<.001).
- The MD group had a significantly greater improvement in general cognitive function compared to the MCI group in Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Shape Trail Test, and Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants18
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR serious games) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 18 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 | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 35188466) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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 “cognitive-function”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.