Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 26;2020(2):CD011961. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011961.pub2

Lawrence 2018.

Methods RCT of standard CT vs tailored CT vs transcranial direct current stimulation vs standard CT + transcranial direct current stimulation vs tailored CT + transcranial direct current stimulation vs control group.
Participants People diagnosed with idiopathic PD in accordance with the UKPDBB criteria, with MCI in accordance with the MDS Parkinson's Disease–Mild Cognitive Impairment (PD‐MCI) Level II diagnostic criteria. Number randomised (n = 42).
Interventions Standard cognitive training known as Smartbrain Pro targeting specific cognitive domains, for 45 minutes, 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Tailored cognitive training of the same format and duration where cognitive activities were individualised to participant's baseline neuropsychological test results. Both treatment arms were included in the meta‐analyses.
Control group received no intervention.
Outcomes

  • Executive function

  1. Stockings of Cambridge (of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Tests Automated Battery)

  2. COWAT

  • Attention

  1. Letter‐Number Sequencing

  2. Stroop (Colour‐Word Interference) test

  • Memory

  1. Hopkins Verbal Learning Test‐Revised Immediate Recall subtest

  2. Paragraph Recall Test

  • Visuo‐spatial abilities

  1. JLO

  2. Hooper Visual Organization Test

  • Language

  1. Boston Naming Test‐Short Form

  2. Similarities Test

  • Global cognition

  1. Parkinson’s Disease‐Cognitive Rating Scale

  2. MMSE

  • Premorbid intelligence

  1. National Adult Reading Test

  • Activities of daily living

  1. Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (Section II)

  • Quality of life

  1. PDQ‐39
Notes We included both the standard and the tailored cognitive training treatment groups in the analyses.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Sequence generated by computer following CONSORT guidelines.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Participants were randomised to treatment (5 intervention and 1 control) by a computer‐generated list using block randomisation at a ratio of 1:1. Probably done.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No further details provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Authors mention that it was not possible to blind researchers.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Attrition reported. No details of reasons are provided.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes reported.
Other bias Low risk No other bias detected.