Summary of findings for the main comparison.
| Computerised cognitive training compared with control intervention in cognitively healthy people in midlife | ||||
|
Patient or population: cognitively healthy people in midlife Settings: general population Intervention: computerised cognitive training Comparison: control intervention | ||||
| Outcomes | Difference between CCT and control (95% CI)1 | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Global cognitive functioning | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| Cognitive subdomain: episodic memory, 6 months of follow‐up | MD 0.03 lower (0.10 lower to 0.04 higher) | 3090 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2 | CCT may lead to little or no improvement in episodic memory |
| Cognitive subdomain: executive functioning, 6 months of follow‐up | MD 1.57 lower (1.85 lower to 1.29 lower) | 3994 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2 | CCT possibly improves executive function compared to active control |
| Cognitive subdomain: working memory, 6 months of follow‐up | MD 0.09 higher (0.03 higher to 0.15 higher) | 5831 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2 | CCT possibly maintains working memory worse than active control, but the difference is deemed negligible |
| Cognitive subdomain: speed of processing | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| Quality of life | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| One or more serious adverse events | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| * The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk Ratio | ||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||
1The direction of the effect was standardised, so that lower values favour CCT and higher values favour control.
2Downgraded twice for attrition bias.