SynthesisFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2022
Metacognitive Treatment in Acquired Brain Injury and Its Applicability to Aphasia: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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.
- Trial
- Article
- Treatment of aphasia in linguistically diverse populations: current and future directions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the utility of metacognitive therapeutic intervention for persons with acquired brain injury (ABI), with a focus on persons with aphasia. Methods: A search of six databases resulted in two hundred and sixty-six unique manuscripts relating to the explicit use of metacognitive treatment for people with ABI. Two independent reviewers rated abstracts for inclusion or exclusion of the study given predetermined criteria. Twenty-nine articles, five of which included people with aphasia, were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. SCED+ and PEDro+ rating scales were used to rate the methodological quality of each study. Results: Methodological quality of the 29 studies that met inclusion criteria ranged from weak to high quality studies. Three -hundred and sixty-nine individuals with ABI took part in the 29 studies. Varying treatment methods were employed. Outcome measures were inconsistent. Metacognitive treatment has been applied to people with aphasia with positive results, but efficacy of the treatment cannot yet be determined. Conclusions: Metacognitive therapeutic intervention tends to be effective for persons with acquired brain injury (ABI) despite variability between intervention designs and treatment outcomes across studies. Due to so few studies with participants with aphasia, we were unable to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of metacognitive treatment for people with aphasia. Further research on the efficacy of metacognitive treatment for this population is warranted.
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.