Summary of findings for the main comparison.
| Computerised cognitive training compared with active control in people with mild cognitive impairment | ||||
|
Patient or population: patients with mild cognitive impairment Settings: general population Intervention: computerised cognitive training Comparison: active control | ||||
| Outcomes | Differences between CCT and control (95% CI)* | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Global cognitive functioning (follow‐up ranging from 3 months up to 2 years) | SMD 0.53 lower (1.06 lower to 0.01 lower) | 407 participants (5 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowb | It is uncertain whether CCT maintains global cognitive functioning better than active control |
| Episodic memory (follow‐up ranging from 3 months up to 2 years) | SMD 0.79 lower (1.54 lower to 0.04 lower) | 223 participants (5 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowb | It is uncertain whether CCT improves episodic memory compared to active control |
| Speed of processing (follow‐up ranging from 3 months up to 2 years) |
SMD 0.20 higher (0.16 lower to 0.56 higher) | 119 participants (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc | CCT may have little or no effect on speed of processing |
| Executive functioning (follow‐up ranging from 3 months up to 2 years) |
SMD 0.31 lower (0.90 lower to 0.28 higher) | 150 participants (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowb | It is uncertain whether CCT improves executive functioning better than active control |
| Working memory (follow‐up ranging from 3 months up to 9 months) | SMD 0.88 lower (1.73 lower to 0.03 lower) | 72 participants (3 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowd | It is uncertain whether CCT improves working memory compared to active control |
| Verbal fluency (follow‐up ranging from 3 months up to 18 months) | SMD 0.16 lower (0.76 lower to 0.44 higher) | 150 participants (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc | CCT may have little or no effect on speed of processing |
| Quality of life (3 months of follow‐up) |
MD 0.40 higher (1.85 higher to 2.65 lower) | 19 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc | CCT may have little or no effect on quality of life |
| * 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). CCT: computerised cognitive training; CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference. | ||||
| 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. | ||||
aThe direction of the difference in effect was standardised, so that lower values favour CCT and higher values favour control.
bDowngraded three levels for imprecision (confidence interval included effects that are not clinically relevant), inconsistency (high heterogeneity), and risk of bias.
cDowngraded two levels for imprecision (confidence interval included effects that are not clinically relevant) and risk of bias.
dDowngraded four levels for imprecision (confidence interval included effects that are not clinically relevant), inconsistency (high heterogeneity), indirectness, and risk of bias.