| Methods |
An RCT comparing a training programme in reading and arithmetic problems (learning therapy) vs a control condition in older adults with AD |
| Participants |
32 participants living in a nursing home in Japan (mean age 85.7, range 76 to 96) with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's‐type dementia according to DSM‐IV (mean MMSE score 19.8, range 7 to 30) |
| Interventions |
Participants in the experimental condition (n = 16) were trained on a programme (Learning Therapy) that focused on reading aloud and solving arithmetic problems, provided at learning centres in Euju‐no‐Sato, with 2 to 6 sessions per week for about 20 minutes per day for longer than 6 months
Participants in the control condition (n = 16) were presumed to have had a no‐contact condition |
| Outcomes |
Outcomes included change in global cognition and measures of executive functioning, verbal communication capacity, and functional independence. Assessments were conducted at baseline and after completion of the intervention (6 months) |
| Country |
Japan |
| Registration status |
No information provided; presumed to be unregistered |
| Conflict of Interests |
Not stated |
| Notes |
Study authors sent MMSE scores at post‐intervention assessment, which were missing from the published report, as well as overall scores for the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Although study authors described the study as an RCT, they provided no information on the method of randomisation |
| 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 |
High risk |
Study authors described the study as a single‐blind RCT (research assistants in charge of conducting the observation were blinded) |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
No blinding; outcomes could have been influenced by lack of blinding |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
No outcome data were missing |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Study authors did not report scores for MMSE at post‐intervention assessment, but we obtained them upon request |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
Study appears to be free of other sources of bias |
