Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Physical exercise, cognitive training, and vitamin D are low cost interventions that have the potential to enhance cognitive function and mobility in older adults, especially in pre-dementia states such as Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Aerobic and progressive resistance exercises have benefits to cognitive performance, though evidence is somewhat inconsistent. We postulate that combined aerobic exercise (AE) and progressive resistance training (RT) (combined exercise) will have a better effect on cognition than a balance and toning control (BAT) intervention in older adults with MCI. We also expect that adding cognitive training and vitamin D supplementation to the combined exercise, as a multimodal intervention, will have synergistic efficacy. Methods The SYNERGIC trial (SYNchronizing Exercises, Remedies in GaIt and Cognition) is a multi-site, double-blinded, five-arm, controlled trial that assesses the potential synergic effect of combined AE and RT on cognition and mobility, with and without cognitive training and vitamin D supplementation in older adults with MCI. Two-hundred participants with MCI aged 60 to 85 years old will be randomized to one of five arms, four of which include combined exercise plus combinations of dual-task cognitive training (real vs. sham) and vitamin D supplementation (3 × 10,000 IU/wk. vs. placebo) in a quasi-factorial design, and one arm which receives all control interventions. The primary outcome measure is the ADAS-Cog (13 and plus modalities) measured at baseline and at 6 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include neuroimaging, neuro-cognitive performance, gait and mobility performance, and serum biomarkers of inflammation (C reactive protein and interleukin 6), neuroplasticity (brain-derived neurotropic factor), endothelial markers (vascular endothelial growth factor 1), and vitamin D serum levels. Discussion The SYNERGIC Trial will establish the efficacy and feasibility of a multimodal intervention to improve cognitive performance and mobility outcomes in MCI. These interventions may contribute to new approaches to stabilize and reverse cognitive-mobility decline in older individuals with MCI. Trial registration Identifier: NCT02808676. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02808676 .

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Montero-Odasso, M., Almeida, Q. J., Burhan, A. M., Camicioli, R., Doyon, J., Fraser, S., et al. (2018). SYNERGIC TRIAL (SYNchronizing Exercises, Remedies in Gait and Cognition) a multi-Centre randomized controlled double blind trial to improve gait and cognition in mild cognitive impairment. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0782-7

Vancouver

Montero-Odasso M, Almeida QJ, Burhan AM, Camicioli R, Doyon J, Fraser S, et al. SYNERGIC TRIAL (SYNchronizing Exercises, Remedies in Gait and Cognition) a multi-Centre randomized controlled double blind trial to improve gait and cognition in mild cognitive impairment. BMC geriatrics. 2018. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0782-7. PMID: 29661156.

BibTeX

@article{monteroodasso2018-29661156,
  author  = {Montero-Odasso, M. and Almeida, Q. J. and Burhan, A. M. and Camicioli, R. and Doyon, J. and Fraser, S. and Li, K. and Liu-Ambrose, T. and others},
  title   = {{SYNERGIC TRIAL (SYNchronizing Exercises, Remedies in Gait and Cognition) a multi-Centre randomized controlled double blind trial to improve gait and cognition in mild cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {BMC geriatrics},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12877-018-0782-7},
  pmid    = {29661156},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0782-7}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 75/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 2 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 46 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 75 of 100. Total 75 of 100.46 of the 61 points we could judge = 75 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 75 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “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 2018 — within 10 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29661156)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 46 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 75 out of 100.
Total 75 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “placebo-controlled”

783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “placebo-controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →