Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Individualised computerised cognitive training for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely virtual, randomised, controlled trial
Stephanie Book, Michael Jank, Anna Pendergrass, Elmar Graessel. Trials, 2022-05-05
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
This is the first study to investigate the effect of MAKSCog, an individualised CCT, specifically developed for people with different subtypes of MCI. A methodological strength is the double-blind, randomised, controlled design and the use of basic CCT as an active control group. The study is conducted entirely virtually with valid telehealth assessments for cognitive function. Methodological limitations might include a restriction to participants who feel comfortable with the use of technology and who own a computer, laptop, or tablet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN14437015 . Prospectively registered on 27 February 2020.
Key findings
- This is the first study to investigate the effect of MAKSCog, an individualised CCT, specifically developed for people with different subtypes of MCI.
- A methodological strength is the double-blind, randomised, controlled design and the use of basic CCT as an active control group.
- The study is conducted entirely virtually with valid telehealth assessments for cognitive function.
- Methodological limitations might include a restriction to participants who feel comfortable with the use of technology and who own a computer, laptop, or tablet.
- TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN14437015 .
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Trials) |
| 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 | 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 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 35513855) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 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.
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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Book, S., Jank, M., Pendergrass, A., & Graessel, E. (2022). Individualised computerised cognitive training for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely virtual, randomised, controlled trial. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06152-9
Vancouver
Book S, Jank M, Pendergrass A, Graessel E. Individualised computerised cognitive training for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely virtual, randomised, controlled trial. Trials. 2022. doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06152-9. PMID: 35513855.
BibTeX
@article{book2022-35513855,
author = {Book, Stephanie and Jank, Michael and Pendergrass, Anna and Graessel, Elmar},
title = {{Individualised computerised cognitive training for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely virtual, randomised, controlled trial}},
journal = {Trials},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1186/s13063-022-06152-9},
pmid = {35513855},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06152-9}
}