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 62 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Recent demographic trends indicate that older people appear to be one of the fastest growing population groups worldwide. In the year 2000, people older than 65 years represented 12.4% of the population. This number is expected to rise to 19% by 2030, particularly in developed countries. Therefore, there is sustained effort at both national and international levels to prolong the active life of these people as long as possible. Since the present older generation at the age of 55 years is already digitally literate, the use of technologies is one of the solutions. The purpose of this study is to discuss the role of the Internet in the prevention of cognitive decline in normal aging. The author examines clinical studies that exploit the use of the Internet, including online training programs, in the prevention of cognitive decline in healthy older individuals. The findings of the clinical studies indicate that the use of the Internet, especially online cognitive training programs, may have a positive effect on the improvement of cognitive functions in healthy older adults. Nevertheless, larger sample longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trials aimed at the prevention of cognitive decline among healthy older adults are needed.

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

APA 7th

Klimova, B. (2016). Use of the Internet as a prevention tool against cognitive decline in normal aging. Clinical interventions in aging. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s113758

Vancouver

Klimova B. Use of the Internet as a prevention tool against cognitive decline in normal aging. Clinical interventions in aging. 2016. doi:10.2147/cia.s113758. PMID: 27672317.

BibTeX

@article{klimova2016-27672317,
  author  = {Klimova, B.},
  title   = {{Use of the Internet as a prevention tool against cognitive decline in normal aging}},
  journal = {Clinical interventions in aging},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.2147/cia.s113758},
  pmid    = {27672317},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s113758}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 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 left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 36 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.36 of the 58 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded 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 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical interventions in aging)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
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 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 27672317)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 36 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 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 “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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →