ReviewCureus2022
Comparison of Rehabilitative Interventions That Ameliorate Post-stroke Working Memory Deficit: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke is one of the most common causes of disability in the world. It has sensory, motor, and cognitive symptoms. Many cognitive domains might get involved in a stroke. This systematic review focuses on working memory domain deficits after stroke and their various rehabilitation methods. This review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA) guidelines. For this review, we have searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct databases and screened thoroughly with the inclusion criteria of free full-text English papers in the last 10 years that have exclusively studied humans. The articles included in the search are randomized control trials (RCTs), observational studies, meta-analysis studies, systematic reviews, and traditional reviews. Consequent quality assessment was done using the most commonly used tools for each type of study and eight papers were selected. From these papers, full-text articles were studied, analyzed, and tabulated. We found five different rehabilitation methods: transcranial direct-current stimulation, computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation, physical activity, goal setting, and multimodal rehabilitation. We found that goal setting, computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation, and multimodal rehabilitation can improve working memory deficits. While transcranial direct current stimulation and physical activity were inconsistent, further studies are needed. The small sample size, no follow-up, the inclusion of only a few studies, the size of the stroke, and comorbid conditions like mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and depression were the main limitations of this study. Future reviews must include a larger number of studies with large sample sizes, including follow-up as an inclusion criterion. We need more clinical trials on these methods for better knowledge.
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.