| Methods |
An RCT targeting community‐dwelling older adults with AD and comparing effects of the repetition lag procedure, recognition practice, and a no‐contact condition on memory recall |
| Participants |
36 participants with a diagnosis of probable AD dementia according to NINCDS‐ADRDA and DSM‐IV criteria. Dementia had to be considered mild to moderate with MMSE scores of 19 or above. Mean age of participants was 81.1, and mean education level was 11.3 |
| Interventions |
Participants in the recollection training condition (n = 12) engaged in an activity adapted from the repetition‐lag procedure developed by Jennings and Jacoby (2003), in which they had to remember a series of nouns and then recognise them from longer lists of words
Participants in the recognition practice condition (n = 12) received training on a cognitive training procedure, which shared some characteristics with the one designed for the other experimental condition
Participants in both training conditions received 4 training sessions per day 3 days a week for 2 weeks
Remaining participants (n = 12) were randomised to a no‐contact control condition |
| Outcomes |
Outcomes included working memory, immediate and delayed memory, and recognition |
| Country |
France |
| Registration status |
No information provided; presumed to be unregistered |
| Conflict of Interests |
Not stated |
| Notes |
Study authors provided clarification on one of the scores, as it was not clear due to a typing error |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Although the study was described as a randomised controlled trial, no information on the method of randomisation was provided |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
High risk |
Study authors did not mention allocation concealment. For this reason, we assumed this was not done |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Study authors did not mention blinding of participants. The study included a passive control condition, so blinding was not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
This is usually stated. As study authors did not mention it, it is unlikely that this has been done |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Data are available for 36 participants in the study |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
All tests mentioned in the "Methods" section were reported in the "Results" section |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
We did not detect any other major sources of bias |
