ArticleBMJ open2022
Association of cognitive reserve with stroke outcome: a protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analytical cohort study on cognitive reserve as a predictor of post-stroke dementia severity.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- The impact of pre-stroke formal education on language test performance in aphasic and non-aphasic stroke survivors.Aphasiology · 2025Article
- Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol to Triglyceride Ratio and Clinical Outcomes after Acute Ischaemic Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was introduced to account for individual differences in the clinical manifestation of neurodegenerative diseases. Though several mechanisms and risk factors are shared between neurodegeneration and stroke, the effect of CR on poststroke functional outcome has been poorly addressed. This systematic review aims to synthesise the available research evidence on the association of CR with stroke outcome, in order to implement the understanding of interindividual variability in stroke outcome and to improve its prediction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and reference lists of relevant literature will be searched for publications on CR proxies (eg, education, years of education, occupational attainment, premorbid intelligence) and stroke outcome, published between 1 January 1980 and 10 March 2022. Two reviewers will independently perform the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third independent reviewer. The Quality In Prognosis Studies tool will be used to assess the quality of each included study. The primary outcome will be functional outcome after stroke assessed with modified Rankin Scale, activities of daily living (eg, Barthel Index), National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, dichotomised as favourable versus not favourable as well as reported as continuous or ordinal variables. Qualitative and quantitative findings will be summarised and, if possible, data will be synthesised using appropriate meta-analytical methods. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required as it is a protocol for a systematic review and the data used will be extracted from published studies. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at conferences. The data will be made freely available. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021256175.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.