MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142417005 · doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00806-7

The efficacy of exergaming in people with major neurocognitive disorder residing in long-term care facilities: a pilot randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3142417005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathalie Swinnen, Mathieu Vandenbulcke, Eling D. de Bruin, Riekje Akkerman, Brendon Stubbs, Joseph Firth, Davy Vancampfort

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s Research & Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKoning BoudewijnstichtingKU LeuvenNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialNeurocognitivePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationDementiaPsychologyMemory spanPost-hoc analysisMedicineCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It is currently unknown whether exergaming is efficacious in people with major neurocognitive disorder (MNCD) residing in long-term care facilities. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) explored the efficacy of a stepping exergame program on gait speed, balance, mobility, reaction time, cognitive and neuropsychiatric outcomes, quality of life, and daily life functioning in people with MNCD residing in long-term care facilities. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks, three times weekly, 15 min of exergaming versus watching preferred music videos. The exergame device consisted of a pressure-sensitive step training platform on which participants performed stepping movements to play the games. The device automatically adapted the training level to the participants’ capabilities. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), step reaction time test (SRTT), Montréal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), Dementia Quality of Life (DQoL), and Katz Activities of Daily Living (Katz ADL) were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. A Quade’s non-parametric ANCOVA controlling for baseline values with post hoc Bonferroni correction ( p < 0.00625) was used to analyze pre- and post-differences between the groups. Partial eta-squared (η 2 p) effect sizes were calculated. Results Forty-five of 55 randomized inpatients with mild to moderate MNCD (Mini-Mental State Examination score = 17.2 ± 4.5; aged 70–91; 35 women) completed the study. The exergame group ( n = 23) demonstrated improvements in gait speed ( p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.41), total SPPB ( p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.64), SRTT ( p <0.001, η 2 p = 0.51), MoCA ( p <0.001, η 2 p = 0.38), and reductions in CSDD ( p <0.001, η 2 p = 0.43) compared to the control group ( n = 22). There were no differences in NPI ( p = 0.165, η 2 p = 0.05), DQoL ( p = 0.012, η 2 p = 0.16), and ADL ( p = 0.008, η 2 p = 0.16) post-intervention scores between the experimental and control group, albeit DQol and ADL measures showed large effect sizes in the exergame group. The mean attendance rate was 82.9% in the exergame group and 73.7% in the music control group. There were no study-related adverse events reported by the participants, nor observed by the research team. Conclusions The findings of this pilot RCT suggest that an individually adapted exergame training improves lower extremity functioning, cognitive functioning and step reaction time and symptoms of depression in inpatients with MNCD residing in long-term care facilities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04436302

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s Research & TherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207