4.7 Review

Effects of computerised cognitive training on cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 268, Issue 5, Pages 1680-1688

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-019-09522-7

Keywords

Computerized cognitive training; Randomized controlled trials; Subjective cognitive decline; Meta-analysis; Mild cognitive impairment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CCT is effective in improving cognitive function, particularly in memory. Specific CCT is more efficacious than non-specific CCT or placebo, but not as effective as traditional CT. The effect of CCT is almost double in SCD compared to MCI, indicating early intervention in SCD is more beneficial.
Introduction Computerised cognitive training (CCT) has been shown to enhance cognitive function in elderly individuals with cognitive deterioration, but evidence is controversial. Additionally, whether specific CCT is most effective and which stages of cognitive impairment benefit most is unclear. Methods We systematically searched nine medical and technological databases to collect randomized controlled trials related to CCT primarily conducted in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Results We identified 12 studies in patients with SCD and MCI. Pooled analysis showed that CCT could significantly improve cognitive function (g = 0.518, p = 0.000), especially related to memory. In terms of different types of cognitive training, specific CCT was more efficacious than non-specific CCT (g = 0.381, p = 0.007) or placebo (g = 0.734, p = 0.000) but not traditional CT (p = 0.628). In terms of stages of cognitive deterioration, the effect of CCT on SCD (g = 0.926, p = 0.002) was almost double that of its effect on MCI (g = 0.502, p = 0.000). Conclusion CCT was most effective in cognitive rehabilitation, particularly in the subdomain of memory. Early intervention in SCD is better.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available