| Title |
The efficacy of Cognitive training in patients with VAsCular Cognitive Impairment, No dEmentia (the Cog-VACCINE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-016-1523-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yi Tang, Zude Zhu, Qing Liu, Fang Li, Jianwei Yang, Fangyu Li, Yi Xing, Jianping Jia |
| Abstract |
Vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (VCIND) refers to cognitive deficits associated with underlying vascular causes that fall short of a dementia diagnosis. There is currently no treatment for VCIND. Computerized cognitive training, which has significantly improved cognitive function in healthy older adults and patients with cognitive impairment has not yet been applied to VCIND. The proposed study is a three-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial that will include 60 patients with VCIND. The patients will be randomized to either a training or a control group. The intervention is internet-based cognitive training performed for 30 min over 35 sessions. Neuropsychological assessment and functional and structural MRI will be performed before and after 7 weeks training. Primary outcomes are global cognitive function and executive function. Secondary outcome measures are neuroplasticity changes measured by functional and structural MRI. Applying an internet-based, multi-domain, adaptive program, this study aims to assess whether cognitive training improves cognitive abilities and neural plasticity in patients with subcortical VCIND. In addition to the comprehensive assessment of the participants by neuropsychological tests, cerebrovascular risk factors and apolipoprotein E genotyping, neuroplasticity will be used as an evaluation outcome in this study for, to our knowledge, the first time. The combination of functional and structural MRI and neuropsychological tests will have strong sensitivity in evaluating the effects of cognitive training and will also reveal the underlying mechanisms at work. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02640716 . Retrospectively registered on 21 December 2015. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 193 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 19% |
| Unknown | 63 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 16% |
| Psychology | 28 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 12% |
| Unknown | 71 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,992,163
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#34
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,018
of 383,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 11 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.