ArticleMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2023
Understanding who benefits most from cognitive rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis: A secondary data analysis.
Article in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Looking Beyond Dose: Identifying Responders and Non-Responders to RehaCom Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation in Progressive MS-The CogEx Study.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Trial
- Not for everyone: examining predictors of cognitive rehabilitation success in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- An interdisciplinary approach is necessary in the treatment of cognitive decline in multiple sclerosis: Yes.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025Article
- Advanced neuroimaging techniques to explore the effects of motor and cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
- Don't be late! Timely identification of cognitive impairment in people with multiple sclerosis: a study protocol.BMC neurology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUp to 70% of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience cognitive difficulties. Cognitive rehabilitation is a type of therapy that helps manage cognitive problems.
objectiveThe Cognitive Rehabilitation for Attention and Memory in MS (CRAMMS) trial showed some evidence of effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation in improving cognitive function, with some participants benefitting more than others. We therefore conducted a secondary analysis of the CRAMMS data to understand who benefits most.
methodsWe grouped baseline data into four categories of possible predictors. We used regression models to identify specific factors/characteristics that could predict the likelihood that an individual will benefit from cognitive rehabilitation.
resultsThe models predicted whether a participant improved or did not improve in neuropsychological function following cognitive rehabilitation in up to 86% of participants. Results suggest that younger participants with medium to high education, diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) who have not experienced any recent relapses, with mild to moderate cognitive difficulties were most likely to benefit from cognitive rehabilitation.
conclusionWe can predict which participants are most likely to demonstrate significant improvements in neuropsychological function following group-based cognitive rehabilitation. Clinically, this allows us to optimise limited neuropsychology resources by offering such cognitive rehabilitation to those most likely to benefit.
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.