在轻度认知障碍患者中开展语言训练的单盲随机对照对比试验。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias Pub Date : 2019-05-01 Epub Date: 2018-12-05 DOI:10.1177/1533317518813554
Eleni Poptsi, Ioulietta Lazarou, Nefeli Markou, Maria Vassiloglou, Evdokia Nikolaidou, Alexandra Diamantidou, Vassiliki Siatra, Elina Karathanassi, Anastasios Karakostas, Fotini Kounti Zafeiropoulou, Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Magda Tsolaki
{"title":"在轻度认知障碍患者中开展语言训练的单盲随机对照对比试验。","authors":"Eleni Poptsi, Ioulietta Lazarou, Nefeli Markou, Maria Vassiloglou, Evdokia Nikolaidou, Alexandra Diamantidou, Vassiliki Siatra, Elina Karathanassi, Anastasios Karakostas, Fotini Kounti Zafeiropoulou, Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Magda Tsolaki","doi":"10.1177/1533317518813554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although cognitive training is effective for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), it is not clear which format is more effective.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of the same language programs when carried out via computer, paper/pencil and orally in people with MCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-one participants with MCI were randomly classified in 3 experimental and 2 control groups. The experimental groups attended 48 sessions of language training for 6 months. The control groups attended either unstructured sessions or they were on waiting list.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mixed measures analysis of variance, at the follow-up, showed a significant cognitive abilities improvement among the experimental versus control groups. At the end of the language training, the 3 groups presented improvement in cognitive abilities and daily function, while the control groups remained at the same performance level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All 3 cognitive language training methods were equally significantly effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":50816,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias","volume":"34 3","pages":"176-187"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10852481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial With Language Training in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment.\",\"authors\":\"Eleni Poptsi, Ioulietta Lazarou, Nefeli Markou, Maria Vassiloglou, Evdokia Nikolaidou, Alexandra Diamantidou, Vassiliki Siatra, Elina Karathanassi, Anastasios Karakostas, Fotini Kounti Zafeiropoulou, Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Magda Tsolaki\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1533317518813554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although cognitive training is effective for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), it is not clear which format is more effective.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of the same language programs when carried out via computer, paper/pencil and orally in people with MCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-one participants with MCI were randomly classified in 3 experimental and 2 control groups. The experimental groups attended 48 sessions of language training for 6 months. The control groups attended either unstructured sessions or they were on waiting list.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mixed measures analysis of variance, at the follow-up, showed a significant cognitive abilities improvement among the experimental versus control groups. At the end of the language training, the 3 groups presented improvement in cognitive abilities and daily function, while the control groups remained at the same performance level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All 3 cognitive language training methods were equally significantly effective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias\",\"volume\":\"34 3\",\"pages\":\"176-187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10852481/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317518813554\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/12/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317518813554","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管认知训练对轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者有效,但哪种形式更有效尚不清楚:方法:将 71 名 MCI 患者随机分为 3 个实验组和 1 个对照组:方法:71 名 MCI 患者被随机分为 3 个实验组和 2 个对照组。实验组参加为期 6 个月的 48 节语言训练课。结果:混合测量方差分析显示,实验组和对照组的语言表达能力均高于对照组:混合计量方差分析显示,在随访中,实验组和对照组的认知能力都有显著提高。在语言培训结束时,3 个实验组的认知能力和日常功能都有所提高,而对照组则保持在同一水平:结论:三种认知语言训练方法都同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparative Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial With Language Training in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Background: Although cognitive training is effective for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), it is not clear which format is more effective.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the same language programs when carried out via computer, paper/pencil and orally in people with MCI.

Methods: Seventy-one participants with MCI were randomly classified in 3 experimental and 2 control groups. The experimental groups attended 48 sessions of language training for 6 months. The control groups attended either unstructured sessions or they were on waiting list.

Results: Mixed measures analysis of variance, at the follow-up, showed a significant cognitive abilities improvement among the experimental versus control groups. At the end of the language training, the 3 groups presented improvement in cognitive abilities and daily function, while the control groups remained at the same performance level.

Conclusion: All 3 cognitive language training methods were equally significantly effective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias
American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease and other Dementias® (AJADD) is for professionals on the frontlines of Alzheimer''s care, dementia, and clinical depression--especially physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, administrators, and other healthcare specialists who manage patients with dementias and their families. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
The Psychological Symptoms and Their Relationship to the Quality of Life Among Dementia Patients Caregivers Different Splice Isoforms of Peripheral Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells 2 mRNA Expressions are Associated With Cognitive Decline in Mild Dementia Due to Alzheimer’s Disease and Reflect Central Neuroinflammation White Light Stimulation at Gamma Frequency to Modify the Aβ42 and tau Proteins in SH-SY5Y Cells Burden of Illness Among Patients with Psychosis due to Dementia with Lewy Bodies and Other Dementias. Task-Evoked Pupillary Response as a Potential Biomarker of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Scoping Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1