4.4 Article

The Effect of Cognitive Training in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Preliminary Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 190-197

出版社

KOREAN NEUROLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3988/jcn.2012.8.3.190

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; cognitive therapy; memory; mild cognitive impairment; training

资金

  1. Korea Healthcare technology RD Project
  2. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A102065]
  3. Mita University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose The objective of this study was to determine the benefits of cognitive training in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and those with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods Eleven patients with aMCI and nine with early AD (stage 4 on the Global Deterioration Scale) participated in this study. Six participants with aMCI and six with AD were allocated to the cognitive training group, while five participants with aMCI and three with AD were allocated to a wait-list control group. Multicomponent cognitive training was administered in 18 weekly, individual sessions. Outcome measures were undertaken at baseline, and at 2 weeks and 3 months of follow-up. Results In the trained MCI group, there were significant improvements in the delayed-recall scores on the Seoul Verbal Learning Test at both the 2-week and 3-month follow-ups compared with baseline (baseline, 1.6 +/- 1.5; 2 weeks, 4.4 +/- 1.5, p=0.04; 3 months, 4.6 +/- 2.3, p=0.04). The phonemic fluency scores (1.0 +/- 0.8 vs. 5.0 +/- 1.8, p=0.07) and Korean Mini-Mental State Examination scores (18.8 +/- 0.5 vs. 23.8 +/- 2.2, p=0.07) also showed a tendency toward improvement at the 2-week follow-up compared to baseline in the trained AD group. Conclusions This study provides evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive training in aMCI and early AD. The efficacy of cognitive training programs remains to be verified in studies with larger samples and a randomized design. J Clin Neurol 2012;8:190-197

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据