Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Nonimmersive Brain Gaming for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review
Sood P, Kletzel SL, Krishnan S, Devos H, Negm A, Hoffecker L, Machtinger J, Hu X et al.. The Gerontologist, 2019-11-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Technological advances have allowed a variety of computerized cognitive training tools to be engineered in ways that are fun and entertaining yet challenging at a level that can maintain motivation and engagement. This revolution has created an opportunity for gerontological scientists to evaluate brain gaming approaches to improve cognitive and everyday function. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide a critical overview of the existing literature on nonimmersive, electronic brain gaming interventions in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Research design and methods Systematic search was conducted using 7 electronic databases from inception through July 2017. A comprehensive 2-level eligibility process was used to identify studies for inclusion based on PRISMA guidelines. Results Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria. Majority of the studies were randomized controlled trials (n = 13) and incorporated an active control (n = 9). Intervention doses ranged from 4 to 24 weeks in duration with an average of 8.4 (±5.1 standard deviation [SD]) weeks. Session durations ranged from 30 to 100 min with an average of 54 (±25 SD) minutes. Nearly half of studies included a follow-up, ranging from 3 months to 5 years (n = 8). For most studies, brain gaming improved at least one cognitive outcome (n = 12); only one study reported improvement in activities of daily living. Discussion and implications This scoping review conveys the breadth of an emerging research field, which will help guide future research to develop standards and recommendations for brain gaming interventions which are currently lacking.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sood, P., Kletzel, S. L., Krishnan, S., Devos, H., Negm, A., Hoffecker, L., et al. (2019). Nonimmersive Brain Gaming for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny164
Vancouver
Sood P, Kletzel SL, Krishnan S, Devos H, Negm A, Hoffecker L, et al. Nonimmersive Brain Gaming for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review. The Gerontologist. 2019. doi:10.1093/geront/gny164. PMID: 30605502.
BibTeX
@article{sood2019-30605502,
author = {Sood, P. and Kletzel, S. L. and Krishnan, S. and Devos, H. and Negm, A. and Hoffecker, L. and Machtinger, J. and Hu, X. and others},
title = {{Nonimmersive Brain Gaming for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review}},
journal = {The Gerontologist},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1093/geront/gny164},
pmid = {30605502},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny164}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria.
Study details
- Participants13
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 13 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 30605502) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 “cognitive-impairment”
7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-impairment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.