Home › Research › Prevention trials
The effects of 7-week cognitive training in patients with vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (the Cog-VACCINE study): A randomized controlled trial
Tang Y, Xing Y, Zhu Z, He Y, Li F, Yang J, Liu Q, Li F et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2019-03-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Evidence for the efficacy of cognitive training in patients with subcortical vascular cognitive impairment no dementia is still lacking. Methods A randomized, active controlled design using multidomain, adaptive, computerized cognitive training for 30 minutes, 5 days/week for 7 weeks. Assessments included global cognitive function and executive function (primary outcomes) and brain functional connectivity and structural changes (secondary outcomes). Results Sixty patients were randomized across three medical centers in Beijing. At the end of the intervention, the cognitive training group showed significant improvement in Montreal Cognitive Assessment relative to the active control group (P = .013) and significantly increased functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and medial prefrontal cortex, which was significantly correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment change (P = .017). Discussion Computerized cognitive training significantly improved global cognitive function, which was supported by the improved brain plasticity. Incorporation of biomarkers should be implemented in cognitive training trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tang, Y., Xing, Y., Zhu, Z., He, Y., Li, F., Yang, J., et al. (2019). The effects of 7-week cognitive training in patients with vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (the Cog-VACCINE study): A randomized controlled trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.01.009
Vancouver
Tang Y, Xing Y, Zhu Z, He Y, Li F, Yang J, et al. The effects of 7-week cognitive training in patients with vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (the Cog-VACCINE study): A randomized controlled trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.01.009. PMID: 30894299.
BibTeX
@article{tang2019-30894299,
author = {Tang, Y. and Xing, Y. and Zhu, Z. and He, Y. and Li, F. and Yang, J. and Liu, Q. and others},
title = {{The effects of 7-week cognitive training in patients with vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (the Cog-VACCINE study): A randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2019.01.009},
pmid = {30894299},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.01.009}
}
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 Sixty patients were randomized across three medical centers in Beijing.
- At the end of the intervention, the cognitive training group showed significant improvement in Montreal Cognitive Assessment relative to the active control group (P = .013) and significantly increased functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and medial prefrontal cortex, which was significantly correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment change (P = .017).
- Discussion Computerized cognitive training significantly improved global cognitive function, which was supported by the improved brain plasticity.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a leading specialty 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, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2019 — 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 | 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 30894299) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 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 “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.