ReviewDigital health
Effectiveness of computer-based telerehabilitation software (RehaCom) compared to other treatments for patients with cognitive impairments: A systematic review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Training in Patients With Poststroke Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- An investigation into telemedicine utilization for refugee mental health: a systematic review.Globalization and health · 2025Pooled it
- Looking Beyond Dose: Identifying Responders and Non-Responders to RehaCom Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation in Progressive MS-The CogEx Study.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Trial
- Adjunctive strategies in multiple sclerosis treatment: non-pharmacological approaches and their potential clinical implications.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Home-based cognitive telerehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: differential cognitive trajectories according to baseline impairment severity.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rehabilitation process for cognitive disorders is long and complex, which can lead to reduced rehabilitation outcomes and reduced quality improvement. Thus, there is a need to use new methods to boost conventional rehabilitation (e.g., drug therapy, herbal therapy, paper, and pencil tasks). Innovations such as RehaCom can be helpful to remove the obstacles to treatment, but evidence for their effectiveness is limited. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of RehaCom with other cognitive therapies (computer-based, non- computer) in patients with cognitive impairment (CI). Methods: Eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, Cochran Library, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and google scholar) were used in this research. The initial search resulted in the extraction of 2466 articles; after the review of the title, abstract, and full text, 19 articles were selected. Quality assessment was performed using the CONSORT checklist. Then, data extraction was done using the form set by the researcher in Word 2016 software. Results: Overall, RehaCom achieved more positive clinical effects compared to other cognitive therapies (e.g., improvement in memory, attention, and motor function) on multiple sclerosis ( Conclusions: This review provides evidence for the potential effectiveness of RehaCom for the improvement of clinical outcomes in patients with CI. However, more robust Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are needed to confirm the observed positive effects.
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.