ReviewCaspian journal of internal medicine2025
Computerized cognitive rehabilitation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) is one of the main features of multiple sclerosis (MS). Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) programs are crucial for improving cognition and computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation is considered as an effective method for cognition rehabilitation. To assess the effects of computer-based cognitive rehabilitation program on cognition in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases along with gray literature up to September 2021. Randomized clinical trials, articles had been published in the English language. We evaluated the risk of potential bias via the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated. Results: The preliminary search retrieved 2302 articles by literature search, after deleting duplicates 2248 remained. Eight articles remained for meta-analysis. Totally, 235 patients in intervention group and 192 in control group were evaluated. Mean age ranged from 43.5-52 years. The SMD of PASAT (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test) (Case-control) test was 0.35 (95%CI:0.1-0.66) (I2:24.4%, P=0.2). The SMD of SDMT (Case-control) test was 0.07 (95%CI:-0.18-0.33). The SMD of PASAT before and after intervention in case group was 0.68 (95%CI:0.45-0.91) (I2:40%, P=0.15). The SMD of SDMT before and after intervention in case group was 0.44 (95%CI:0.21-0.66) (I2:40%, P=0.15). Conclusions: The results of this systematic and meta-analysis showed that computerized cognitive rehabilitation program is effective in improving PASAT score.
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.