Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Short-term computerized cognitive training does not improve cognition compared to an active control in non-demented adults aged 80 years and above
West RK, Rabin LA, Silverman JM, Moshier E, Sano M, Beeri MS.. International psychogeriatrics, 2020-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Older adults, especially those above age 80, are the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States and at risk for age-related cognitive decline and dementia. There is growing evidence that cognitive activity and training may allow adults to maintain or improve cognitive functioning, but little is known about the potential benefit in the oldest old. In this randomized trial, the effectiveness of a computerized cognitive training program (CCT program) was compared to an active control games program to improve cognition in cognitively normal individuals aged 80 and older. Methods Sixty-nine older adults were randomized to a 24-session CCT program (n = 39) or an active control program (n = 30). Participants completed a pre- and post- training neuropsychological assessment. The primary outcome measure was a global cognitive composite, and the secondary outcomes were the scores on specific cognitive domains (of memory, executive function/attention, and language). Results Using linear mixed models, there were no significant differences between the CCT and the active control program on the primary (p = 0.662) or any of the secondary outcomes (language functioning, p = .628; attention/executive functioning, p = .428; memory, p = .749). Conclusion This study suggests that short-term CCT had no specific benefit for cognitive functioning in non-demented individuals aged 80 and older.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
West, R. K., Rabin, L. A., Silverman, J. M., Moshier, E., Sano, M., & Beeri, M. S. (2020). Short-term computerized cognitive training does not improve cognition compared to an active control in non-demented adults aged 80 years and above. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610219000267
Vancouver
West RK, Rabin LA, Silverman JM, Moshier E, Sano M, Beeri MS. Short-term computerized cognitive training does not improve cognition compared to an active control in non-demented adults aged 80 years and above. International psychogeriatrics. 2020. doi:10.1017/s1041610219000267. PMID: 30968798.
BibTeX
@article{west2020-30968798,
author = {West, R. K. and Rabin, L. A. and Silverman, J. M. and Moshier, E. and Sano, M. and Beeri, M. S.},
title = {{Short-term computerized cognitive training does not improve cognition compared to an active control in non-demented adults aged 80 years and above}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610219000267},
pmid = {30968798},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610219000267}
}
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
- In this randomized trial, the effectiveness of a computerized cognitive training program (CCT program) was compared to an active control games program to improve cognition in cognitively normal individuals aged 80 and older.
- Results Using linear mixed models, there were no significant differences between the CCT and the active control program on the primary (p = 0.662) or any of the secondary outcomes (language functioning, p = .628; attention/executive functioning, p = .428; memory, p = .749).
- Conclusion This study suggests that short-term CCT had no specific benefit for cognitive functioning in non-demented individuals aged 80 and older.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants39
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised 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 multi-centre 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 (International psychogeriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised 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 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 39 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 30968798) |
| 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “short-term”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “short-term”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.