2.
| Computerised cognitive training compared with inactive control in cognitively healthy people in late life | ||||
|
Patient or population: cognitively healthy people in late life Settings: general population Intervention: computerised cognitive training Comparison: inactive control intervention | ||||
| Outcomes | Difference between CCT and control (95% CI)a* | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Global cognitive function measured at the end of the intervention period | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| Cognitive subdomain: episodic memory measured at the end of the intervention period (6 months) | MD 0.90 lower (1.73 lower to 0.07 lower) | 150 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowb | CCT may improve slightly episodic memory when compared to inactive control |
| Cognitive subdomain: speed of processing measured at the end of the intervention period (12 to 16 weeks) | SMD 0.28 lower (0.82 lower to 0.26 higher) | 204 participants (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowc | It is uncertain whether CCT maintains speed of processing better than inactive control |
| Cognitive subdomain: executive functioning measured at the end of the intervention period (12 weeks to 6 months) | SMD 0.08 lower (0.31 lower to 0.15 higher) | 292 participants (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowb | CCT may lead to little or no improvement in executive functioning when compared to inactive control |
| Cognitive subdomain: working memory measured at the end of the intervention period (16 weeks) | MD 0.08 lower (0.43 lower to 0.27 higher) | 60 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowb | CCT may lead to little or no improvement in working memory when compared to inactive control |
| Cognitive subdomain: verbal fluency measured at the end of the intervention period (6 months) | MD 0.11 lower (1.58 lower to 1.36 higher) | 150 participants (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowb | CCT may lead to little or no improvement in verbal fluency when compared to inactive control |
| Quality of life at the end of the intervention period | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| Number of participants experiencing 1 or more serious adverse events at the end of the intervention period | Not reported using a validated measure | |||
| * The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CCT: computerised cognitive training; CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; SMD: standardised mean difference. | ||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||
aThe direction of the difference in effect was standardised so that lower values favour CCT and higher values favour control.
bDowngraded two levels for imprecision (confidence interval included effects that are not clinically relevant) and risk of bias.
cDowngraded three levels for imprecision (confidence interval included effects that are not clinically relevant), inconsistency (high heterogeneity), and risk of bias.