Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25566021›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2014

Novel insights into the rehabilitation of memory post acquired brain injury: a systematic review.

Lauriane A Spreij, Johanna M A Visser-Meily, Caroline M van Heugten, Tanja C W Nijboer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lauriane A SpreijDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University Utrecht, Netherlands.
Johanna M A Visser-MeilyBrain Center Rudolf Magnus, Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation Utrecht, Netherlands.
Caroline M van HeugtenDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University Maastricht, Netherlands.
Tanja C W NijboerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University Utrecht, Netherlands ; Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAcquired Brain Injury (ABI) frequently results in memory impairment causing significant disabilities in daily life and is therefore a critical target for cognitive rehabilitation. Current understanding of brain plasticity has led to novel insights in remediation-oriented approaches for the rehabilitation of memory deficits. We will describe 3 of these approaches that have emerged in the last decade: Virtual Reality (VR) training, Computer-Based Cognitive Retraining (CBCR) and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NBS) and evaluate its effectiveness.

methodsA systematic literature search was completed in regard to studies evaluating interventions aiming to improve the memory function after ABI. Information concerning study content and reported effectiveness were extracted. Quality of the studies and methods were evaluated.

resultsA total of 786 studies were identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of those studies represent the VR technique, 7 studies represent CBCR and 5 studies NBS. All 3 studies found a significant improvement of the memory function after VR-based training, however these studies are considered preliminary. All 7 studies have shown that CBCR can be effective in improving memory function in patients suffering from ABI. Four studies of the 5 did not find significant improvement of the memory function after the use of NBS in ABI patients.

conclusionOn the basis of this review, CBCR is considered the most promising novel approach of the last decade because of the positive results in improving memory function post ABI. The number of studies representing VR were limited and the methodological quality low, therefore the results should be considered preliminary. The studies representing NBS did not detect evidence for the use of NBS in improving memory function.

Indexed as

acquired brain injurycomputer-based cognitive retrainingmemorynon-invasive brain stimulationremediation-oriented techniquevirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID25566021
PMCPMC4267268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.