Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

View ORCID ProfileAmit Lampit, View ORCID ProfileHanna Malmberg Gavelin, Julieta Sabates, Nathalie H Launder, Harry Hallock, View ORCID ProfileCarsten Finke, View ORCID ProfileStephan Krohn, View ORCID ProfileGeeske Peeters
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.07.20208306
Amit Lampit
1Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
2Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Amit Lampit
  • For correspondence: amit.lampit@unimelb.edu.au
Hanna Malmberg Gavelin
1Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hanna Malmberg Gavelin
Julieta Sabates
1Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathalie H Launder
1Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harry Hallock
2Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carsten Finke
2Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carsten Finke
Stephan Krohn
2Department of Neurology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stephan Krohn
Geeske Peeters
5Global Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
6Department of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud Institute of Health Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Geeske Peeters
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 11, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Amit Lampit, Hanna Malmberg Gavelin, Julieta Sabates, Nathalie H Launder, Harry Hallock, Carsten Finke, Stephan Krohn, Geeske Peeters
medRxiv 2020.10.07.20208306; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.07.20208306
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Amit Lampit, Hanna Malmberg Gavelin, Julieta Sabates, Nathalie H Launder, Harry Hallock, Carsten Finke, Stephan Krohn, Geeske Peeters
medRxiv 2020.10.07.20208306; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.07.20208306

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (216)
  • Allergy and Immunology (496)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1105)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (196)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (274)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (505)
  • Epidemiology (9792)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (481)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2326)
  • Geriatric Medicine (223)
  • Health Economics (463)
  • Health Informatics (1566)
  • Health Policy (737)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (607)
  • Hematology (238)
  • HIV/AIDS (507)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11665)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (617)
  • Medical Education (240)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (258)
  • Neurology (2151)
  • Nursing (134)
  • Nutrition (340)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (427)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (519)
  • Oncology (1184)
  • Ophthalmology (366)
  • Orthopedics (129)
  • Otolaryngology (221)
  • Pain Medicine (148)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (313)
  • Pediatrics (698)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (302)
  • Primary Care Research (268)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2193)
  • Public and Global Health (4680)
  • Radiology and Imaging (784)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (458)
  • Respiratory Medicine (625)
  • Rheumatology (275)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (226)
  • Sports Medicine (211)
  • Surgery (252)
  • Toxicology (43)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)