Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27148007›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2016

Computer-Based Cognitive Training for Executive Functions after Stroke: A Systematic Review.

Renate M van de Ven, Jaap M J Murre, Dick J Veltman, Ben A Schmand

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04010149 (The Impact of Concurrent Brain Stimulation and Working Memory Training on Cognitive Performance in Acquired Brain Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT04010149 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Concurrent Brain Stimulation and Working Memory Training on Cognitive Performance in Acquired Brain Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BirminghamRan2019 to 2021Enrolled40ConditionsAcquired Brain InjuryArmsActive tDCS, SHAM tDCS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Renate M van de VenDepartment of Psychology, Brain and Cognition, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jaap M J MurreDepartment of Psychology, Brain and Cognition, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Dick J VeltmanDepartment of Psychiatry, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ben A SchmandDepartment of Psychology, Brain and Cognition, University of AmsterdamAmsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of AmsterdamNetherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke commonly results in cognitive impairments in working memory, attention, and executive function, which may be restored with appropriate training programs. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence for computer-based cognitive training of executive dysfunctions.

methodsStudies were included if they concerned adults who had suffered stroke or other types of acquired brain injury, if the intervention was computer training of executive functions, and if the outcome was related to executive functioning. We searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. Study quality was evaluated based on the CONSORT Statement. Treatment effect was evaluated based on differences compared to pre-treatment and/or to a control group.

resultsTwenty studies were included. Two were randomized controlled trials that used an active control group. The other studies included multiple baselines, a passive control group, or were uncontrolled. Improvements were observed in tasks similar to the training (near transfer) and in tasks dissimilar to the training (far transfer). However, these effects were not larger in trained than in active control groups. Two studies evaluated neural effects and found changes in both functional and structural connectivity. Most studies suffered from methodological limitations (e.g., lack of an active control group and no adjustment for multiple testing) hampering differentiation of training effects from spontaneous recovery, retest effects, and placebo effects.

conclusionsThe positive findings of most studies, including neural changes, warrant continuation of research in this field, but only if its methodological limitations are addressed.

Indexed as

acquired brain injuryattentionbrain trainingcomputer-basedexecutive functionsrestitutionretrainingworking memory

Identifiers

PMID27148007
PMCPMC4837156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.