Home › Research › Prevention trials
One-year repeated cycles of cognitive training (CT) for Alzheimer's disease
Bergamaschi S, Arcara G, Calza A, Villani D, Orgeta V, Mondini S.. Aging clinical and experimental research, 2013-06-20
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Recent research suggests that a combination of both pharmacological and psychosocial treatments targeting cognitive functions improves cognition in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The present study evaluated the effectiveness of a 1-year cognitive training (CT) by comparing the cognitive performance of 16 patients with AD treated with CT and cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (experimental group) with the performance of 16 patients treated with a non-specific cognitive treatment and ChEIs (control group). Methods This study was a single-blind randomized controlled trial. The patients in the experimental group received pharmacological treatment and repeated cycles of CT for 1 year, whereas the control group received pharmacological treatment and repeated cycles of non-specific cognitive exercises. The patients in the two groups were administered a variety of neuropsychological tests measuring several cognitive functions (i.e. memory, language, reasoning, executive function, working memory and apraxia), activities of daily living, and depression. Results After 1 year of training, the experimental group scored significantly higher on the Mini Mental State Examination, the Milan Overall Dementia Assessment battery and in other five neuropsychological tests, compared to the control group. Conclusions Present results suggest that repeated cycles of CT in patients with AD treated with ChEIs are associated with benefits in several areas of cognitive function.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bergamaschi, S., Arcara, G., Calza, A., Villani, D., Orgeta, V., & Mondini, S. (2013). One-year repeated cycles of cognitive training (CT) for Alzheimer's disease. Aging clinical and experimental research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-013-0065-2
Vancouver
Bergamaschi S, Arcara G, Calza A, Villani D, Orgeta V, Mondini S. One-year repeated cycles of cognitive training (CT) for Alzheimer's disease. Aging clinical and experimental research. 2013. doi:10.1007/s40520-013-0065-2. PMID: 23784727.
BibTeX
@article{bergamaschi2013-23784727,
author = {Bergamaschi, S. and Arcara, G. and Calza, A. and Villani, D. and Orgeta, V. and Mondini, S.},
title = {{One-year repeated cycles of cognitive training (CT) for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Aging clinical and experimental research},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1007/s40520-013-0065-2},
pmid = {23784727},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-013-0065-2}
}
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
- Background Recent research suggests that a combination of both pharmacological and psychosocial treatments targeting cognitive functions improves cognition in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).
- Results After 1 year of training, the experimental group scored significantly higher on the Mini Mental State Examination, the Milan Overall Dementia Assessment battery and in other five neuropsychological tests, compared to the control group.
- Conclusions Present results suggest that repeated cycles of CT in patients with AD treated with ChEIs are associated with benefits in several areas of cognitive function.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants16
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging clinical and experimental research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A 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 | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 16 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomized 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23784727) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “trial”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “trial”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.