Abstract
Background Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is a broad category of drill-and-practice interventions aims to maintain cognitive performance in older adults. Despite a supportive evidence base for general efficacy, it is unclear what types of CCT are most likely to be beneficial and what intervention design factors are essential for clinical implementation. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any type of CCT in cognitively healthy older adults. Risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. The primary outcome was change in overall cognitive performance between CCT and control groups. Secondary outcomes were individual cognitive domains. A series of meta-regressions were performed to estimates associations between key design factors and overall efficacy using robust variance estimation models. Network meta-analysis was used to compare the main approaches to CCT against passive or common active control conditions. Results Ninety RCTs encompassing 7219 participants across 117 comparisons were included. The overall cognitive effect size across all trials was small (g=0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23) with considerable heterogeneity (τ2=0.074, 95% prediction interval -0.36 to 0.73), robust to small-study effect or risk of bias. Effect sizes for individual cognitive domains were small, heterogeneous and statistically significant apart from fluid intelligence and visual processing. Meta-regressions revealed significantly larger effect sizes in trials using supervised training or up to three times per week. Multidomain training was the most efficacious CCT approach against any type of control, with greater benefits in a subset of supervised training studies. Conclusions The efficacy of CCT varies substantially across designs, independent of the type of control. Multidomain supervised CCT appears to be the most efficacious approach, and should be developed to accommodate for individual needs and remote delivery settings. Future research should focus on identifying the intervention components and regimens that could attenuate aging-related cognitive decline.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
AL is funded by a CR Roper Fellowship from the University of Melbourne. GP was supported by a fellowship from the Global Brain Health Institute.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All underlying data are available from the corresponding author upon request.
