Cited by 507Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and Testing

Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia

Open access
Bahar-Fuchs, Alex, Clare, Linda, Woods, Bob·2013·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairments, particularly memory problems, are a defining feature of the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia. Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation are specific interventional approaches designed to address difficulties with memory and other aspects of cognitive functioning. The present review is an update of previous versions of this review. OBJECTIVES: The main aim of the current review was to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for people with mild Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia in relation to important cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes for the person with dementia and the primary caregiver in the short, medium and long term. SEARCH METHODS: The CDCIG Specialized Register, ALOIS, which contains records from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and many other clinical trial databases and grey literature sources, was most recently searched on 2 November 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, comparing cognitive rehabilitation or cognitive training interventions with control conditions, and reporting relevant outcomes for the person with dementia and/or the family caregiver, were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eleven RCTs reporting cognitive training interventions were included in the review. A large number of measures were used in the different studies, and meta-analysis could be conducted for 11 of the primary and secondary outcomes of interest. Several outcomes were not measured in any of the studies. The unit of analysis in the meta-analysis was the change from baseline score. Overall estimates of treatment effect were calculated using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured using a standard Chi(2) statistic. One RCT of cognitive rehabilitation was identified, allowing examination of effect sizes, but no meta-analysis could be conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Cognitive training was not associated with positive or negative effects in relation to any reported outcomes. The overall quality of the trials was low to moderate. The single RCT of cognitive rehabilitation found promising results in relation to a number of participant and caregiver outcomes, and was generally of high quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence regarding cognitive training remains limited, and the quality of the evidence needs to improve. However, there is still no indication of any significant benefit derived from cognitive training. Trial reports indicate that some gains resulting from intervention may not be captured adequately by available standardised outcome measures. The results of the single RCT of cognitive rehabilitation show promise but are preliminary in nature. Further, well-designed studies of cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation are required to obtain more definitive evidence. Researchers should describe and classify their interventions appropriately using available terminology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003260.pub2

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. MED- LINE (1950-present); Journal Citation Re- ports] Topic=(dement* OR VCI OR "vascu- lar cognitive impairment*" OR VaD OR alzheimer*) AND Topic=("cognit* train*" OR "cognit* rehab*" OR "memory aid*" OR "memory train*" OR "memory sup- port*" OR "memory stimul*") AND Topic=(randomly OR placebo OR groups OR trial OR RCT OR randomized OR randomised) AND Year Published=(2009- 2011) Timespan=2009-2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bahar-Fuchs, A., Clare, L., & Woods, B.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University; Centre for Research on Ageing, Health, and Wellbeing; Building 63, Eggleston Rd., Acton Canberra ACT Australia 2600
  • Bangor University (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-05
Volume
2013
Issue
6
Pages
CD003260-CD003260
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1939289671
Cited by
507
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation, Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, mild cognitive impairment, memory impairment, dementia caregivers, caregiver outcomes, treatment effectiveness, outcome measures, intervention classification, dementia interventions, non-cognitive outcomes, early-stage dementia, trial heterogeneity, primary and secondary outcomes, intervention intensity
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Humans, Dementia, Vascular, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review