Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The efficacy of Cognitive training in patients with VAsCular Cognitive Impairment, No dEmentia (the Cog-VACCINE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Tang Y, Zhu Z, Liu Q, Li F, Yang J, Li F, Xing Y, Jia J.. Trials, 2016-08-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (VCIND) refers to cognitive deficits associated with underlying vascular causes that fall short of a dementia diagnosis. There is currently no treatment for VCIND. Computerized cognitive training, which has significantly improved cognitive function in healthy older adults and patients with cognitive impairment has not yet been applied to VCIND. Methods/design The proposed study is a three-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial that will include 60 patients with VCIND. The patients will be randomized to either a training or a control group. The intervention is internet-based cognitive training performed for 30 min over 35 sessions. Neuropsychological assessment and functional and structural MRI will be performed before and after 7 weeks training. Primary outcomes are global cognitive function and executive function. Secondary outcome measures are neuroplasticity changes measured by functional and structural MRI. Discussion Applying an internet-based, multi-domain, adaptive program, this study aims to assess whether cognitive training improves cognitive abilities and neural plasticity in patients with subcortical VCIND. In addition to the comprehensive assessment of the participants by neuropsychological tests, cerebrovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E genotyping, neuroplasticity will be used as an evaluation outcome in this study for, to our knowledge, the first time. The combination of functional and structural MRI and neuropsychological tests will have strong sensitivity in evaluating the effects of cognitive training and will also reveal the underlying mechanisms at work. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02640716 . Retrospectively registered on 21 December 2015.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tang, Y., Zhu, Z., Liu, Q., Li, F., Yang, J., Xing, Y., et al. (2016). The efficacy of Cognitive training in patients with VAsCular Cognitive Impairment, No dEmentia (the Cog-VACCINE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1523-x
Vancouver
Tang Y, Zhu Z, Liu Q, Li F, Yang J, Xing Y, et al. The efficacy of Cognitive training in patients with VAsCular Cognitive Impairment, No dEmentia (the Cog-VACCINE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1523-x. PMID: 27496126.
BibTeX
@article{tang2016-27496126,
author = {Tang, Y. and Zhu, Z. and Liu, Q. and Li, F. and Yang, J. and Xing, Y. and Jia, J.},
title = {{The efficacy of Cognitive training in patients with VAsCular Cognitive Impairment, No dEmentia (the Cog-VACCINE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {Trials},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1186/s13063-016-1523-x},
pmid = {27496126},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1523-x}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Background Vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (VCIND) refers to cognitive deficits associated with underlying vascular causes that fall short of a dementia diagnosis.
- Computerized cognitive training, which has significantly improved cognitive function in healthy older adults and patients with cognitive impairment has not yet been applied to VCIND.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants60
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 75/100
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 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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Trials) |
| 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 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 60 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27496126) |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “protocol”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “protocol”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.