Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality Assessment of Included Studies (N = 9)

From: Effects of computerized cognitive training on neuroimaging outcomes in older adults: a systematic review

Quality item

Suo et al. [19] 2016

Rosen et al. [18] 2011

Lampit et al. [16] 2015

Belleville et al. [21] 2014

Lin et al. [17] 2014

Strenziok et al. [24] 2014

Lövden et al. [23] 2010

Antonenko et al. [20] 2016

Heinzel et al. [22] 2014

PEDro Scale Items

1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

2

+

+

+

+

+

+

3

+

+

+

+

+

4

+

+

+

+

+

+

5

+

+

+

6

+

7

+

+

+

+

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

9

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

10

+

+

+

+

+

11

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Additional Items

12

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

13

+

14

+

  1. PEDro scoring system: receive a point (+) for each item that is met. When criteria were not met (−), no points were given
  2. The maximum number of points is 10, which means excellent quality based on PEDro’s quality assessment
  3. Additional Quality Assessment Items: Maximum score of 3
  4. PEDro Scale
  5. 1. Eligibility criteria were specified (this item is not used to calculate the PEDro score)
  6. 2. Subjects were randomly allocated to groups
  7. 3. Allocation was concealed
  8. 4. The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators
  9. 5. There was blinding of all subjects
  10. 6. There was blinding of all therapists who administered the therapy
  11. 7. There was blinding of all assessors who measured at least one key outcome
  12. 8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups
  13. 9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome was analyzed by “intention to treat”
  14. 10. The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome
  15. 11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome
  16. Additional Items
  17. 12. Was cognition measured to assist the interpretation of neuroimaging results?
  18. 13. Was there a sample size calculation?
  19. 14. Was the compliance reported?