| Methods |
An RCT targeting persons with early‐stage AD conducted to assess effects at a neuropsychological level of computerised CT compared to a control intervention |
| Participants |
80 participants (29 males, 51 females) with a diagnosis of early‐stage probable AD (according to NINCDS‐ADRDA) were recruited in an Assisted Health Residence in Italy. Mean age of participants was 76.41, and mean years of formal education was 8.32 |
| Interventions |
Participants in the experimental condition (n = 40) received individual computerised CT, delivered by the rehabilitative software Brainer1 (https://www.brainer.it/), which includes over 100 exercises targeting different cognitive domains
Control intervention was delivered 1‐on‐1 by a neuropsychologist. Participants in this condition (n = 40) could choose between reading newspaper articles online and discussing them with the neuropsychologist, playing online games and solving puzzles, or visiting websites suiting their interests
Both interventions conditions were delivered by a neuropsychologist over a 12‐month period, with 30‐minute sessions held 3 times per week |
| Outcomes |
Outcomes included cognitive performance in the domains of memory, semantic knowledge, language, visuospatial abilities, and executive functions, as well as anxiety and depression
All participants were evaluated before and after training, and at 6‐month follow‐up assessment |
| Country |
Italy |
| Registration status |
No information provided; presumed to be unregistered |
| Conflict of Interests |
Not stated |
| Notes |
Study authors sent us the scores for the post‐intervention assessment |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Study authors stated that participants were "randomised into two different groups by means of a random number generator with mixed block sizes" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Study authors stated that they used a computerised randomisation system. It is likely that allocation concealment was done, but this is not specified |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Study authors did not mention blinding of participants. They compared CT vs an active condition, so blinding may have been possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Assessors were blind to the purpose of the study and to the group to which each participant belonged |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Missing outcome data were balanced in numbers across intervention groups, and reasons for missing data were similar |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Findings regarding the various outcomes were not presented in a consistent way, but we were able to obtain the relevant data from study authors |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |
