Trial reportBMC neurology2026
Effects of different modes of computerised cognitive training in older adults with reversible cognitive frailty: a randomised controlled trial in nursing homes.
Trial report in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to evaluate the effects of computerised cognitive training (CCT) on cognitive functions in older adults with reversible cognitive frailty (RCF) and compare memory-focused training (MT) with multi-domain cognitive training (MDCT).
methodsIn this double-blind, CONSORT-compliant randomised controlled trial (RCT), 52 older adults with RCF living in a nursing home were stratified by frailty status (pre-frail/frail) and randomly allocated to MT (active control) or MDCT for 12 weeks (two sessions per week). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 3 months (post-intervention), and 4 months (1-month follow-up), using generalised estimating equations (GEE) with intention-to-treat analysis.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated substantial and statistically significant improvements across all cognitive measures over time (Time effect: P < 0.001). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores increased significantly (Wald χ² = 20.211, P < 0.001), with a mean gain of 1.02 points from baseline to 4 months (95% CI: 0.46–1.58, P < 0.001, effect size r = 0.369), with no significant between-group differences (P = 0.568). Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD) scores also improved significantly (Wald χ² = 73.374, P < 0.001), with a mean reduction of 2.71 points (95% CI: 2.03–3.39, P < 0.001). STT-A and B completion times decreased markedly by averages of 27.57 and 92.99 s, respectively. Notably, for STT-A, performance was significantly faster in the MT group compared to the MDCT group (64.79 vs. 80.46 s, P = 0.038). regarding STT-B, although the interaction was not significant, the MDCT group showed a substantial magnitude of recovery. Clock Drawing Test (CDT) scores improved (Wald χ² = 11.229, P = 0.004), with a mean increase of 0.21 points (95% CI: 0.06–0.36, P = 0.002). The MDCT group showed marginally higher CDT scores, though not statistically significant (P = 0.068).
conclusionsBoth MT and MDCT were feasible and yielded comparable short-term global cognitive gains. However, they exhibited distinct therapeutic profiles where MT facilitated transfer effects in processing speed while MDCT effectively restored executive function. Concurrent improvements in sleep and mood were also observed. These findings support a flexible implementation strategy based on available resources, allowing clinicians to select the modality that best targets an individual’s specific cognitive profile.
trial registrationThis study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 8 February 2023 (ChiCTR2300068132).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.