Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30006801›Full record

SynthesisNeuropsychology review2018

General and Domain-Specific Effectiveness of Cognitive Remediation after Stroke: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jeffrey M Rogers, Rachael Foord, Renerus J Stolwyk, Dana Wong, Peter H Wilson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Occupational therapy for cognitive impairment in stroke patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Comparing the CO-OP ApproachBrain sciences · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Jeffrey M RogersSouth Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia. jeffrey.rogers@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0320-969X
Rachael FoordSchool of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Renerus J StolwykMonash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dana WongMonash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter H WilsonSchool of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive remediation (CR) has been shown to improve cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated quantitative literature review is needed to synthesize recent research and build understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects. Randomized controlled trials of CR were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Studies specific to adult stroke populations were included. Treatment effects were estimated using a random effects model, with immediate and longer-term follow-up outcomes, and moderator effects, examined for both overall and domain-specific functioning. Twenty-two studies were identified yielding 1098 patients (583 in CR groups). CR produced a small overall effect (g = 0.48, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.01) compared with control conditions. This effect was moderated by recovery stage (p < 0.01), study quality (p = 0.04), and dose (p = 0.04), but not CR approach (p = 0.63). Significant small to medium (g = 0.25-0.75) post-intervention gains were evident within each individual outcome domain examined. A small overall effect (g = 0.27, 95% CI 0.04-0.51, p = 0.02) of CR persisted at follow-up (range 2-52 weeks). CR is effective and efficient at improving cognitive performance after stroke. The degree of efficacy varies across cognitive domains, and further high-quality research is required to enhance and sustain the immediate effects. Increased emphasis on early intervention approaches, brain-behavior relationships, and evaluation of activity and participation outcomes is also recommended.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingCognition DisordersCognitive RemediationHumansStrokeStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeCognitive disordersCognitive rehabilitationCognitive remediationMeta-analysisStrokeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30006801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.