Serino 2017.
| Methods | A single‐centre RCT evaluating whether a novel VR‐based training protocol can improve general spatial abilities in patients with AD | |
| Participants | 20 participants aged 65 years old were recruited from an Italian social senior centre. All met NINCDS‐ARDRA criteria, and all met criteria for probable dementia on the Milan Overall Dementia Scale
Mean age of participants in the VR condition (9 women, 1 man) was 86.60 (SD 6.13), and average years of education was 9.80 (SD 3.97) Participants in the control condition (8 women, 2 men) had a mean age of 88.70 (SD 3.59), and on average they received 7.00 years of education (SD 5.00) 8 cognitively unimpaired age‐matched participants (4 women, 4 men) also received VR‐based training. Mean age for this group was 86.62 (SD 6.19); mean education level was 9.12 years (SD 5.05) |
|
| Interventions | Participants in the virtual reality (VR)‐based condition (AD; n = 10) underwent a VR programme developed to train their ability to sync between allocentric viewpoint‐dependent and allocentric viewpoint‐independent representations. The training programme consisted of 10 sessions for 3 to 4 consecutive weeks, with approximately 3 sessions each week. Each session contained an "encoding phase" and a "retrieval phase" and was based on (virtually) navigating a virtual city to find hidden objects Participants in the control condition (n = 10) participated in "traditional cognitive rehabilitative activities" (i.e. cognitive stimulation programs, such as card games, naming, fluency, and music listening) Eight cognitively healthy age‐matched participants also participated in VR‐based training ("VR Group ‐ Normal Aging"). This group was not taken into consideration for this review Both interventions were delivered by neuropsychologists |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes included global cognitive function, as well as performance in specific cognitive domains such as executive functions, selective attention, short‐term memory abilities, and short and long‐term spatial memory abilities. The battery was given at baseline and then after the intervention, 3 to 4 weeks later | |
| Country | Italy | |
| Registration status | No information provided; presumed to be unregistered | |
| Conflict of Interests | No | |
| Notes | Study authors sent a table with post‐intervention scores upon request; they clarified that participants had mild to moderate dementia | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Although study authors described 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 | 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 | High risk | Study authors provided no details to suggest that outcome assessment was blind; it is likely that this was not the case |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Study authors provided no details regarding any discontinuation, but equally, whether all participants were assessed post intervention remains unclear |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Some scores for the post‐intervention assessment are missing, but we were able to obtain them from study authors |
| Other bias | Low risk | Study appears to be free of other sources of bias |