Shatil 2013.

Methods	Design: 4‐arm RCT with parallel‐group design Recruitment period: not reported No. of centres involved: 1 Unit of randomisation: individuals No. randomised: 180 Number of arms considered in this review: 4 Maximum trial duration: 4 months Funding by non‐profit organisation: Beckman Insititute Funding by commercial organisation: none reported Publication status: full‐text report
Participants	Patient flow: 45 randomised, 33 described at baseline in experimental group 1; 48 randomised, 29 described at baseline in experimental group 2; 45 randomised, 31 described at baseline in experimental group 3; 42 randomised, 29 described at baseline in control group Number of females: 23 of 33 (70%) in experimental group 1; 20 of 29 (69%) in experimental group 2; 22 of 31 (71%) in experimental group 3; 19 of 29 (66%) in control group 1 Average age (SD): 80 (5.4) years in experimental group 1; 79 (5.5) years in experimental group 2;79 (5.8) years in experimental group 3; 81 (5.3) years in control group 1 Average (SD) education: experimental group 1: some college and above: 26 (78,8%); experimental group 2: some college and above: 17 (58,6%); experimental group 3: some college and above: 28 (90,3%); control group 1: some college and above: 23 (79,3%) Baseline cognitive function: MMSE > 24 Selection criteria on cognition overall: healthy Ethnicity: not reported APOE: number of participants positive for APOE not reported
Interventions	Type of experimental intervention 1: computerised CT group; treatment duration of 16 weeks; intervention provided in group format, under supervision Details of experimental intervention: Cognifit Session duration: 40 minutes in experimental group Number of treatment sessions: 48 in experimental group Treatment frequency: 3/week in experimental group Maximum treatment duration in weeks: 16 in experimental group Type of experimental intervention 2: mixed Details of experimental intervention 2: cognitive training as for experimental arm 1 in combination with group‐based supervised physical training, which consisted of 3 weekly 45‐minute sessions, with at least a 1‐day interval between training days, during 16 weeks Session duration: 40 minutes in experimental group 2 Number of treatment sessions: 48 in experimental group 2 Treatment frequency: 3/week in experimental group 2 Maximum treatment duration in weeks: 16 in experimental group 2 Type of control intervention 1: other; treatment duration of 16 weeks; intervention provided in group format, under supervision Details of control intervention: this group was assigned selected book excerpts to be read at home and held one 60‐minute weekly meeting during which the best ways to achieve the goals advocated in the book were discussed. This group was classified as an active control group because it was compared with the Cognifit group Session duration: 60 minutes in control group Number of treatment sessions: 16 in control group Treatment frequency: 1/week in control group Maximum treatment duration: 16 in control group Type of control intervention 2: other; intervention provided in group format, under supervision Details of control intervention 2: group‐based supervised physical training. This group was classified as an inactive control group because it was compared with the mixed experimental intervention Session duration: 45 minutes in control group 2 Number of treatment sessions: 48 in control group 2 Treatment frequency: 3/week in control group 2 Maximum treatment duration in weeks: 16 in control group 2
Outcomes	Cognitive functioning outcomes considered for both comparisons Speed of processing measured with SVP at 4 months, on a scale from not reported to not reported with higher values indicating benefit Working memory measured with AM Cognifit at 4 months, on a scale from not reported to not reported with higher values indicating benefit Physical functioning outcome considered: none reported Quality of life outcome considered: none reported Safety outcome considered: none reported Depression outcome considered: none reported Other outcome data on cognitive functioning, not considered in our meta‐analyses Cognitif subtests
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement: method of random sequence generation not reported Quote(s): "following the screening subjects were randomized to the four intervention groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement: method of allocation concealment not reported Quote(s): "following the screening subjects were randomized to the four intervention groups"
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement: no information reported
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement: no information reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement: blinding of outcome assessment not reported Quote(s): "to measure change in cognitive function following the interventions, we used the CogniFit neuropsychological evaluation"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement: 62 out of 93 (67%) randomised were analysed in experimental group, and 60 out of 87 (69%) randomised were analysed in control group Quotes: "55 participants (30.5%) left during the baseline testing period, while another battery of tests (to be reported elsewhere) were being administered; before the training interventions.."; "three participants, two in the Cognitive Training Group and one in the Physical Activity Group, left the study, due to health problems. Thus, altogether, 58 subjects (32.2% among the 180 enlisted study participants) withdrew from the study and 122 adhered to it"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Judgement: all outcomes indicated in the methods section are reported in the results section
Other bias	High risk	Judgement: potential high risk of bias because the main author (Shatil) is an employee of the CogniFit Company