Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31427316›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Effect of computerised cognitive training on cognitive outcomes in mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haifeng Zhang, Jonathan Huntley, Rohan Bhome, Benjamin Holmes, Jack Cahill, Rebecca L Gould, Huali Wang, Xin Yu, Robert Howard

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

104 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Haifeng ZhangDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8967-8173
Jonathan HuntleyDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Rohan BhomeDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Benjamin HolmesDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Jack CahillInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Rebecca L GouldDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Huali WangPeking University Sixth Hospital, Peking University Institute of Mental Health, NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health (Peking University), National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing Dementia Key Lab, Beijing, China.
Xin YuPeking University Sixth Hospital, Peking University Institute of Mental Health, NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health (Peking University), National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing Dementia Key Lab, Beijing, China.
Robert HowardDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the effect of computerised cognitive training (CCT) on improving cognitive function for older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched through January 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing CCT with control conditions in those with MCI aged 55+ were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Effect sizes (Hedges' g and 95% CIs) were calculated and random-effects meta-analyses were performed where three or more studies investigated a comparable intervention and outcome. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I

results18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses, involving 690 participants. Meta-analysis revealed small to moderate positive treatment effects compared with control interventions in four domains as follows: global cognitive function (g=0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.44), memory (g=0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50), working memory (g=0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.66) and executive function (g=0.20, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.43). Statistical significance was reached in all domains apart from executive function.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides evidence that CCT improves cognitive function in older people with MCI. However, the long-term transfer of these improvements and the potential to reduce dementia prevalence remains unknown. Various methodological issues such as heterogeneity in outcome measures, interventions and MCI symptoms and lack of intention-to-treat analyses limit the quality of the literature and represent areas for future research.

Indexed as

Therapy, Computer-AssistedCognitionCognitive Behavioral TherapyCognitive DysfunctionHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomecognitive outcomescognitive trainingcomputerisedmeta-analysismild cognitive training (MCI)

Identifiers

PMID31427316
PMCPMC6701629

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.