Home › Research › Prevention trials
Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia
Edwards JD, Xu H, Clark DO, Guey LT, Ross LA, Unverzagt FW.. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2017-11-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Cognitive training improves cognitive performance and delays functional impairment, but its effects on dementia are not known. We examined whether three different types of cognitive training lowered the risk of dementia across 10 years of follow-up relative to control and if greater number of training sessions attended was associated with lower dementia risk. Methods The Advanced Cognitive Training in Vital Elderly (NCT00298558) study was a randomized controlled trial (N = 2802) among initially healthy older adults, which examined the efficacy of three cognitive training programs (memory, reasoning, or speed of processing) relative to a no-contact control condition. Up to 10 training sessions were delivered over 6 weeks with up to four sessions of booster training delivered at 11 months and a second set of up to four booster sessions at 35 months. Outcome assessments were taken immediately after intervention and at intervals over 10 years. Dementia was defined using a combination of interview- and performance-based methods. Results A total of 260 cases of dementia were identified during the follow-up. Speed training resulted in reduced risk of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.998, P = .049) compared to control, but memory and reasoning training did not (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.11, P = .177 and HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.10, P = .163, respectively). Each additional speed training session was associated with a 10% lower hazard for dementia (unadjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95, P < .001). Discussion Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Edwards, J. D., Xu, H., Clark, D. O., Guey, L. T., Ross, L. A., & Unverzagt, F. W. (2017). Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2017.09.002
Vancouver
Edwards JD, Xu H, Clark DO, Guey LT, Ross LA, Unverzagt FW. Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2017. doi:10.1016/j.trci.2017.09.002. PMID: 29201994.
BibTeX
@article{edwards2017-29201994,
author = {Edwards, J. D. and Xu, H. and Clark, D. O. and Guey, L. T. and Ross, L. A. and Unverzagt, F. W.},
title = {{Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.trci.2017.09.002},
pmid = {29201994},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2017.09.002}
}
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
- We examined whether three different types of cognitive training lowered the risk of dementia across 10 years of follow-up relative to control and if greater number of training sessions attended was associated with lower dementia risk.
- Results A total of 260 cases of dementia were identified during the follow-up.
- Speed training resulted in reduced risk of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.998, P = .049) compared to control, but memory and reasoning training did not (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.11, P = .177 and HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.10, P = .163, respectively).
- Each additional speed training session was associated with a 10% lower hazard for dementia (unadjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95, P < .001).
- Discussion Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants2,802
- Effect sizeHR 0.79
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 88/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. 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 51 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 88 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 2,802 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomized (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 29201994) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 51 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 51 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 88 out of 100. |
| Total | 88 / 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 “prevalence”
1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.